Monopolization Under the Sherman Act: A Complete Guide to Section 2
Last updated on September 9, 2026
Parent Topic Guide
This analysis is part of our comprehensive reference guide on Business Law.
Table of Contents
Monopolization Under the Sherman Act: A Complete Guide to Section 2
Monopolization is one of the most important and misunderstood concepts in U.S. antitrust law.
The word monopoly sounds inherently unlawful. But under the Sherman Antitrust Act, having monopoly power is not by itself illegal.
A company may become dominant because it developed a better product, invented an important technology, operated more efficiently, built a powerful brand, or simply succeeded in competing against its rivals.
Antitrust law does not require a successful company to remain small merely because its success makes it dominant.
The legal problem arises when a company willfully acquires or maintains monopoly power through anticompetitive conduct rather than through legitimate competition on the merits.
Section 2 of the Sherman Act addresses this conduct.
The basic principle can therefore be stated simply:
Monopoly power is not itself the offense. The offense is the unlawful acquisition or maintenance of monopoly power through exclusionary conduct.
Cornell Law School’s Legal Information Institute explains that Section 2 of the Sherman Act prohibits monopolization, attempted monopolization, and conspiracies to monopolize.
Cornell Wex: Sherman Antitrust Act
Understanding monopolization therefore requires separating three concepts:
- monopoly power;
- lawful competition that creates monopoly power; and
- unlawful exclusionary conduct used to obtain or preserve monopoly power.
That distinction is the foundation of Section 2 antitrust law.
What Is Monopolization?
Monopolization under Section 2 of the Sherman Act generally requires proof that a defendant possessed monopoly power in a relevant market and willfully acquired or maintained that power through exclusionary conduct rather than legitimate competition.
A typical monopolization claim therefore asks two principal questions:
First:
Does the defendant possess monopoly power?
Second:
Did the defendant obtain or maintain that power through unlawful exclusionary conduct?
Both elements matter.
A company can have substantial market power without violating Section 2.
Likewise, aggressive conduct that harms a competitor does not automatically constitute monopolization.
The law is concerned with conduct that harms the competitive process.
Section 2 of the Sherman Act
Section 2 provides the principal federal prohibition against monopolization.
It addresses:
- monopolization;
- attempted monopolization; and
- conspiracies to monopolize.
This is different from Section 1.
Section 1
Section 1 generally concerns concerted conduct—agreements or combinations between separate economic actors.
Examples include:
- price fixing;
- bid rigging;
- market allocation; and
- certain other agreements restraining trade.
Section 2
Section 2 can address unilateral conduct by a single firm.
For example:
A dominant company deliberately excludes competitors through conduct designed to preserve its monopoly.
No agreement with another competitor is necessarily required.
This distinction is crucial.
Monopoly Power Is Not Automatically Illegal
This is one of the most important rules in antitrust law.
Suppose Company A develops an extraordinarily successful product.
Consumers prefer it because:
- it works better;
- it costs less;
- it is more reliable;
- it is easier to use; or
- it contains a major technological innovation.
Over time, competitors lose market share.
Company A eventually controls 85% of the relevant market.
That fact alone does not establish monopolization.
The company may simply have won the market through competition.
Antitrust law generally does not punish a company merely for being successful.
The central question is:
How did the company obtain and maintain its dominant position?
Monopoly Power
Monopoly power generally means the power to control prices or exclude competition in a relevant market.
It is stronger than ordinary market power.
A company with 20% market share may possess some market power.
A company with 90% market share may possess substantial market power.
But market share is not the entire analysis.
Courts may consider:
- market share;
- barriers to entry;
- potential competition;
- customer switching;
- substitutes;
- durability of the company’s position;
- technological change;
- pricing power; and
- other economic evidence.
The ultimate question is whether the company has durable power over competition.
The Relevant Market
Before determining whether a company possesses monopoly power, courts generally define the relevant market.
The relevant market has two basic dimensions.
Product Market
What products or services compete with the defendant’s product?
For example, if a company sells a particular type of software, the relevant market might include:
- competing software;
- substitute technologies;
- alternative platforms; or
- other products that consumers reasonably view as substitutes.
Geographic Market
Where does competition occur?
The relevant geographic market might be:
- local;
- regional;
- national; or
- international.
Market definition matters because market share has little meaning without knowing what market is being measured.
A company with 90% of a narrowly defined market might have far less power if consumers can easily switch to products outside that definition.
Market Share and Monopoly Power
Market share is an important piece of evidence.
Imagine:
| Company | Market Share |
|---|---|
| A | 80% |
| B | 8% |
| C | 5% |
| D | 4% |
| Others | 3% |
Company A appears dominant.
Now imagine another market:
| Company | Market Share |
|---|---|
| A | 80% |
| B | 10% |
| C | 10% |
If new companies can easily enter the market, customers can switch easily, and alternative technologies are readily available, the significance of the 80% figure may be different.
Thus:
High market share can be strong evidence of monopoly power, but it is not a mathematical definition of monopolization.
Barriers to Entry
Barriers to entry are particularly important.
A company may have a large market share temporarily because it has introduced a successful new product.
If competitors can easily enter, however, the company’s power may be limited.
Barriers can include:
- patents;
- regulatory requirements;
- economies of scale;
- network effects;
- control over essential inputs;
- access to distribution;
- high capital requirements;
- switching costs;
- control over infrastructure; and
- technological advantages.
The higher the barriers to entry, the easier it may be for monopoly power to persist.
The Two-Part Structure of a Monopolization Claim
A traditional Section 2 monopolization claim can be understood through two major elements.
Element One: Monopoly Power
The defendant possesses monopoly power in the relevant market.
Element Two: Exclusionary Conduct
The defendant acquired or maintained that power through exclusionary conduct.
This means a plaintiff generally cannot simply prove:
“Company A is very large.”
Nor can the plaintiff simply prove:
“Company A behaved aggressively.”
The claim requires connecting the defendant’s market power to conduct that unlawfully excludes competition.
What Is Exclusionary Conduct?
Exclusionary conduct is conduct that goes beyond legitimate competition and tends to prevent or restrict rivals from competing on the merits.
This concept is deliberately broader than simply asking whether conduct was harmful to one competitor.
A company may lawfully:
- lower prices;
- improve quality;
- innovate;
- advertise aggressively;
- expand production;
- negotiate favorable contracts;
- acquire customers;
- invest in technology; and
- build an efficient distribution network.
These actions may cause competitors to lose business.
That does not automatically make them exclusionary.
The antitrust question is whether the conduct improperly interferes with the competitive process.
Competition on the Merits
Antitrust law generally protects competition on the merits.
A company can defeat competitors by being:
- cheaper;
- better;
- faster;
- more innovative;
- more efficient;
- more reliable; or
- more attractive to customers.
Suppose Company A invents a dramatically better battery.
Customers abandon competing batteries.
Company A eventually becomes dominant.
That is ordinarily a story of successful competition.
Now suppose Company A threatens distributors:
“If you sell our competitor’s battery, we will cut off your access to our entire product line.”
The analysis changes.
The company may be using its existing market power to exclude a rival rather than simply competing through superior products.
Exclusionary Conduct vs. Hard Competition
This distinction can be difficult.
Antitrust law does not protect competitors from every aggressive business strategy.
For example, a company can lawfully say:
“We have developed a better product, so customers are switching to us.”
But it may raise serious concerns if the company says:
“We will prevent customers from accessing our rival even if they want to buy the rival’s product.”
The first describes competition.
The second potentially describes exclusion.
Examples of Conduct That May Raise Section 2 Concerns
Potentially exclusionary conduct can take many forms.
Examples may include:
- predatory pricing;
- exclusive dealing;
- tying;
- refusal to deal in certain circumstances;
- exclusionary contracts;
- misuse of regulatory processes;
- discriminatory access to essential facilities in appropriate cases;
- acquisitions that eliminate important competitive threats;
- manipulation of interoperability;
- exclusionary rebates; and
- conduct designed to prevent rivals from obtaining necessary inputs or customers.
The legality of each practice depends heavily on its facts and the applicable doctrine.
Predatory Pricing
Predatory pricing occurs when a company prices below an appropriate measure of cost with the purpose and effect of eliminating competition and later exploiting the resulting market power.
The theory is straightforward:
- Company A has substantial resources.
- Company A cuts prices aggressively.
- Rivals cannot survive the losses.
- Rivals exit.
- Company A gains greater market power.
- Company A later raises prices.
But low prices are normally good for consumers.
Therefore, antitrust law must distinguish:
legitimate aggressive pricing
from:
pricing that constitutes unlawful exclusion.
Courts have historically applied demanding standards to predatory-pricing claims because incorrectly condemning low prices can discourage legitimate price competition.
Exclusive Dealing and Monopolization
The previous article discussed exclusive dealing as a potential vertical restraint.
Exclusive dealing can also become relevant to Section 2 when a monopolist uses exclusivity to prevent rivals from accessing enough of the market to compete effectively.
Imagine:
Company A controls most of the market and requires nearly all major distributors to sell only its products.
The concern is no longer merely that Company B lost several distributors.
The broader concern is:
Can Company B still compete effectively?
If most meaningful distribution channels have been closed, exclusivity may function as an exclusionary strategy.
Tying
Tying occurs when a seller conditions the sale of one product on the purchase of another.
For example:
“You can purchase Product A only if you also purchase Product B.”
Tying can become relevant to monopolization when a company with substantial power in one market uses that power to restrict competition in another market.
The legal doctrine is complex, and not every tying arrangement violates Section 2.
The competitive effects and structure of the arrangement matter.
Refusal to Deal
A particularly difficult Section 2 issue concerns refusals to deal.
Ordinarily, businesses have substantial freedom to choose whom they will do business with.
A company generally does not have a universal duty to help its competitors.
That principle is important because forcing companies to cooperate with rivals can reduce incentives to invest and innovate.
However, under limited circumstances, a monopolist’s refusal to deal may raise antitrust concerns.
The Supreme Court has treated these cases cautiously.
A refusal-to-deal theory therefore requires careful attention to the specific facts and governing precedent.
Monopoly Leveraging
Another important theory concerns leveraging.
Leveraging occurs when a company uses power in one market to obtain or strengthen power in another.
For example:
Company A possesses substantial power over an operating system and uses that position to disadvantage competing software.
The precise legal analysis depends on the conduct and the applicable precedent.
The important idea is that monopoly power in one market can potentially be used as a tool to distort competition elsewhere.
Monopoly Maintenance
A company may already possess monopoly power.
Section 2 can nevertheless apply if the company uses exclusionary conduct to maintain that power.
This distinction is important.
The government or plaintiff does not necessarily need to prove that the defendant originally created its monopoly through unlawful conduct.
The relevant question may instead be:
Did the defendant use unlawful conduct to preserve a monopoly that would otherwise face meaningful competitive pressure?
Acquiring Monopoly Power
Section 2 can also address conduct used to acquire monopoly power.
For example, a company may use:
- exclusionary contracts;
- anticompetitive acquisitions;
- predatory conduct;
- coercive arrangements; or
- other exclusionary strategies
to move from substantial market power toward monopoly power.
Again, the key is not simply becoming larger.
Growth through legitimate competition is lawful.
Growth through unlawful exclusion can create Section 2 liability.
Intent and Monopoly Power
Evidence of intent can matter.
Internal documents might show that executives were concerned about a competitor.
That alone does not establish monopolization.
A company is allowed to want to defeat its competitors.
For example:
“We want to beat our competitor.”
is perfectly ordinary.
A more troubling statement might be:
“We need to prevent this competitor from reaching customers, regardless of whether customers want its product.”
Even then, intent does not replace the economic analysis.
Courts generally examine both:
- the company’s conduct; and
- its actual or likely competitive effects.
The “Bad Acts” Problem
A company may engage in many aggressive business practices.
Not every questionable action constitutes monopolization.
A Section 2 case therefore should not become a general morality trial about whether executives behaved badly.
The legal analysis asks specific questions:
- What market is involved?
- Does the company possess monopoly power?
- What conduct occurred?
- Was the conduct exclusionary?
- Did it harm the competitive process?
- Did it help maintain or acquire monopoly power?
- Are there legitimate explanations?
- What evidence demonstrates the competitive effects?
These questions keep antitrust analysis focused.
Monopoly Power vs. Market Power
The terms are related but not identical.
Market power is the ability to raise prices or restrict competition to some degree.
Monopoly power is a substantially greater degree of durable market power.
A firm can possess market power without being a monopolist.
For example:
A company with 35% of a differentiated market may have some pricing power.
But that does not necessarily mean:
The company possesses monopoly power.
The distinction matters because Section 2 monopolization requires the stronger concept.
Monopoly Power vs. Monopoly Status
A company can be the only supplier of a product without necessarily violating antitrust law.
Imagine a company invents a product for which there are no substitutes.
It becomes the only supplier.
The company has a monopoly.
But if the monopoly exists because of innovation rather than exclusionary conduct, the mere existence of that monopoly does not establish a Sherman Act violation.
This is sometimes described as the difference between:
“having a monopoly”
and
“illegally monopolizing.”
The two concepts should never be treated as identical.
Natural Monopoly
Some markets may naturally support only one or a small number of efficient suppliers.
These situations can arise because of:
- enormous infrastructure costs;
- economies of scale;
- network effects; or
- other structural characteristics.
A natural monopoly is not automatically unlawful under the Sherman Act.
The existence of one dominant firm does not by itself prove exclusionary conduct.
Network Effects
Network effects can create unusually durable market positions.
A product may become more valuable as more users adopt it.
For example:
The more people who use a particular platform, the more attractive that platform becomes to additional users.
This can create a feedback loop:
more users → more value → more users → greater market power.
Network effects can therefore create significant barriers to entry.
But again, a company does not violate Section 2 merely because its product benefits from network effects.
The legal issue arises when the company uses exclusionary conduct to exploit or reinforce those effects unlawfully.
Intellectual Property and Monopoly Power
Patents and copyrights can give their owners significant market power.
But intellectual property rights do not automatically create Sherman Act liability.
The law generally recognizes that temporary exclusivity can provide incentives for:
- innovation;
- research;
- creative production; and
- technological development.
At the same time, misuse of intellectual property rights can potentially create antitrust concerns.
The distinction between legitimate intellectual property protection and anticompetitive exclusion can therefore be important.
Monopoly and Innovation
This is one of the most difficult policy questions in antitrust law.
If successful innovation creates market power, should the government intervene?
The traditional answer is:
Not simply because the innovation was successful.
If companies know that becoming too successful will automatically trigger antitrust punishment, they may have less incentive to:
- invent;
- invest;
- reduce costs;
- improve products; or
- develop new technologies.
Antitrust law therefore attempts to preserve incentives for competition while preventing exclusionary strategies that suppress future competition.
The Consumer-Welfare Perspective
Modern U.S. antitrust analysis frequently focuses on competitive effects, including consequences for:
- prices;
- output;
- quality;
- innovation;
- consumer choice; and
- the competitive process.
A monopolization case is therefore not simply a referendum on whether a corporation is “too big.”
The question is whether the company’s conduct harms competition in a legally cognizable way.
This distinction helps explain why some very large companies operate lawfully while smaller companies can potentially violate antitrust law through particular exclusionary conduct.
Government Enforcement
Section 2 can be enforced by federal authorities.
The Department of Justice has authority to bring Sherman Act cases.
The Federal Trade Commission also plays a major role in federal antitrust enforcement under its statutory authorities, although the precise legal theory and enforcement mechanism can differ.
State attorneys general can also bring antitrust actions under applicable state laws.
Private parties may bring qualifying antitrust claims as well.
Civil and Criminal Consequences
Section 2 violations can create substantial legal consequences.
Potential consequences include:
- injunctions;
- monetary damages;
- divestiture;
- restrictions on business practices;
- structural remedies;
- dissolution in extraordinary circumstances;
- government enforcement actions; and
- private antitrust litigation.
Criminal enforcement under Section 2 exists, although modern criminal Sherman Act prosecutions are particularly associated with clear, intentional cartel conduct such as price fixing and bid rigging.
That distinction is important when comparing Section 1 cartel cases with complex Section 2 monopolization cases.
Private Antitrust Litigation
Private parties can sometimes sue for antitrust violations.
A competitor cannot necessarily sue merely because a monopolist defeated it.
The plaintiff generally needs to establish a legally sufficient antitrust injury and satisfy the requirements of the applicable cause of action.
This protects businesses from turning ordinary competitive losses into antitrust lawsuits.
If Company A creates a better product and Company B loses customers, Company B cannot simply characterize that loss as monopolization.
There must be unlawful exclusionary conduct affecting competition.
Section 2 and Competitor Injury
This distinction deserves emphasis.
Antitrust law does not guarantee that competitors will succeed.
Company B may lose because:
- Company A has lower costs;
- Company A has a better product;
- Company A innovates faster;
- Company A has better customer service; or
- consumers simply prefer Company A.
Those are ordinary competitive outcomes.
The law becomes concerned when Company A uses exclusionary conduct to prevent Company B from competing on the merits.
Monopoly Maintenance vs. Efficiency
Suppose a dominant company introduces an automated production system that cuts its costs dramatically.
Competitors cannot match its prices.
The dominant company’s market share rises.
That does not automatically constitute monopolization.
The company may simply have become more efficient.
By contrast, suppose the company acquires exclusive access to a critical input solely to prevent competitors from obtaining it, even though the arrangement has little legitimate business justification.
The second situation presents a substantially different antitrust question.
The Importance of Causation
A monopolization case must connect the challenged conduct to the competitive harm.
Suppose a competitor fails because:
- its product was defective;
- customers disliked its service;
- it ran out of financing; or
- it failed to innovate.
The fact that a monopolist was also present in the market does not automatically make the monopolist responsible.
A plaintiff generally needs to show how the defendant’s conduct contributed to the exclusion of competition.
Monopolization vs. Attempted Monopolization
Section 2 recognizes both completed monopolization and attempted monopolization.
Monopolization
The defendant actually possesses monopoly power and has unlawfully acquired or maintained it.
Attempted Monopolization
The defendant may not yet possess monopoly power but allegedly engages in conduct aimed at obtaining it.
Attempted monopolization therefore requires a different analytical structure.
The existence of dangerous or aggressive conduct alone is not enough.
Courts generally examine the defendant’s market position, conduct, intent, and likelihood of achieving monopoly power.
Conspiracy to Monopolize
Section 2 also addresses conspiracy to monopolize.
This involves concerted conduct directed toward obtaining monopoly power.
Unlike unilateral monopolization, conspiracy necessarily involves more than one participant.
This creates an interesting overlap:
- Section 1 focuses on agreements restraining trade;
- Section 2 can address unilateral monopolization;
- Section 2 also addresses conspiracies to monopolize.
The precise claim depends on the nature of the agreement and conduct.
Monopolization vs. Attempted Monopolization vs. Conspiracy
The three concepts can be summarized as follows:
| Theory | Basic Concept |
|---|---|
| Monopolization | Monopoly power + unlawful exclusionary conduct |
| Attempted monopolization | Conduct aimed at obtaining monopoly power + dangerous probability of success |
| Conspiracy to monopolize | Agreement aimed at obtaining monopoly power |
These theories should not be treated as interchangeable.
A Practical Example
Imagine Company A controls 75% of the market for a specialized software product.
Company B develops a competing product.
Company A responds by:
- improving its own software;
- lowering costs;
- adding features;
- offering better customer service; and
- investing heavily in research.
Company B loses market share.
This may simply be competition.
Now change the facts.
Company A also controls the principal distribution platform and tells distributors:
“If you carry Company B’s software, you will lose access to our entire ecosystem.”
Suppose Company A uses this policy across almost every significant distributor.
Company B cannot reach customers.
Now the antitrust analysis becomes substantially more serious.
The issue is not that Company A is large.
The issue is that Company A may be using its market power to prevent a rival from competing.
Common Misunderstandings
“Monopolies are illegal.”
Too broad.
The Sherman Act prohibits unlawful monopolization, not every monopoly created through legitimate competition.
“A company with 90% market share automatically violates Section 2.”
False.
Market share can be powerful evidence of monopoly power, but unlawful exclusionary conduct is still central to a monopolization claim.
“Being the largest company is monopolization.”
False.
Size and dominance are not synonymous with unlawful monopolization.
“Every aggressive business practice by a monopolist is illegal.”
False.
A monopolist may compete aggressively through better products, lower costs, innovation, and legitimate pricing.
“If a competitor loses money, there must be an antitrust violation.”
False.
Competitors regularly fail in competitive markets.
“Predatory pricing means any low price.”
False.
Low prices usually benefit consumers and are not automatically unlawful.
“Exclusive dealing is always monopolization.”
False.
Exclusive dealing can be lawful. The competitive effects and market context determine whether it raises serious Section 2 concerns.
“Antitrust law protects competitors from losing.”
False.
Antitrust law protects competition, not individual competitors from ordinary competitive losses.
A Practical Section 2 Checklist
When analyzing potential monopolization, ask:
Market
- What is the relevant product market?
- What is the relevant geographic market?
- Who are the actual and potential competitors?
Market power
- What is the defendant’s market share?
- Is the market share durable?
- What barriers to entry exist?
- Can customers switch easily?
- Are meaningful substitutes available?
Conduct
- What exactly did the defendant do?
- Was the conduct unilateral or coordinated?
- Does the conduct exclude rivals?
- Is there a legitimate business explanation?
- Could the conduct be characterized as competition on the merits?
Competitive effects
- Does the conduct reduce output?
- Does it raise prices?
- Does it reduce quality or choice?
- Does it suppress innovation?
- Does it make entry more difficult?
- Does it prevent rivals from competing effectively?
Legal theory
- Is the theory monopolization?
- Attempted monopolization?
- Conspiracy to monopolize?
- Another antitrust theory such as tying or exclusive dealing?
This framework helps separate genuine Section 2 problems from ordinary competitive behavior.
Key Takeaways
The most important principles of monopolization under the Sherman Act are:
- Section 2 addresses monopolization, attempted monopolization, and conspiracy to monopolize.
- Having monopoly power is not automatically illegal.
- Successful competition can legitimately produce monopoly power.
- Monopolization generally requires monopoly power plus exclusionary conduct.
- The relevant market must be considered when evaluating market power.
- Market share is important but not conclusive.
- Barriers to entry can make monopoly power more durable.
- Competition on the merits is generally lawful.
- Predatory pricing can raise Section 2 concerns but is not synonymous with low pricing.
- Exclusive dealing can become relevant when it substantially forecloses competitors.
- Tying can sometimes be used as an exclusionary strategy.
- Refusals to deal are governed by particularly careful and fact-specific doctrine.
- Antitrust law protects competition rather than guaranteeing competitors commercial success.
- Attempted monopolization is distinct from completed monopolization.
- Conspiracy to monopolize requires concerted conduct.
- The ultimate concern is unlawful exclusion of competition, not merely corporate size.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is monopolization under the Sherman Act?
Monopolization under Section 2 generally involves possessing monopoly power in a relevant market and willfully acquiring or maintaining that power through exclusionary conduct rather than legitimate competition.
Is having a monopoly illegal?
Not necessarily. A company may lawfully obtain a dominant position through innovation, efficiency, superior products, or other legitimate competition.
What is monopoly power?
Monopoly power is substantial and durable market power—the ability to control prices or exclude competition to a significant degree.
What is exclusionary conduct?
Exclusionary conduct is business behavior that goes beyond legitimate competition and tends to prevent rivals from competing effectively.
What is the difference between monopoly power and market power?
Market power is the ability to influence competitive conditions. Monopoly power is a substantially stronger and more durable form of market power.
Does market share determine whether a company is a monopolist?
No. Market share is important, but courts also consider entry barriers, substitutes, switching costs, competitive conditions, and other evidence.
Can a company become a monopolist legally?
Yes. A company can become dominant through legitimate competition.
Is predatory pricing illegal?
Potentially, but not every low price is predatory. Courts generally apply demanding standards because aggressive price competition benefits consumers.
Is exclusive dealing monopolization?
Not automatically. Exclusive dealing can be lawful, but a monopolist’s extensive use of exclusivity may raise Section 2 concerns if it substantially forecloses rivals.
Does antitrust law protect small competitors?
Not simply because they are small. Antitrust law protects the competitive process. A small competitor may lose to a larger competitor without any antitrust violation.
Can a monopolist innovate its way out of an antitrust problem?
Innovation is generally a legitimate form of competition. A company does not violate Section 2 merely because its innovation strengthens its market position.
What is attempted monopolization?
Attempted monopolization involves conduct directed toward obtaining monopoly power even though the defendant may not have completed a monopoly.
What is conspiracy to monopolize?
It is an agreement between multiple parties directed toward obtaining or maintaining monopoly power.
Conclusion
Monopolization under the Sherman Act is ultimately about how market power is obtained and maintained.
The law does not condemn success.
A company may develop a revolutionary technology, build an efficient business, attract millions of customers, and become overwhelmingly dominant.
That can be the natural result of competition.
The legal problem begins when dominance is protected not by continued competition, but by conduct designed to prevent competitors from competing.
That distinction explains why Section 2 is simultaneously powerful and difficult.
The law must prevent exclusionary strategies without punishing the very conduct that makes markets competitive:
- innovation;
- efficiency;
- lower costs;
- better products;
- aggressive competition; and
- successful entrepreneurship.
The central question is therefore not:
“Is this company a monopoly?”
It is:
“Has this company unlawfully acquired or maintained monopoly power by excluding competition rather than winning through the merits?”
That is the heart of monopolization doctrine under Section 2 of the Sherman Act.
And it is also the reason why U.S. antitrust law generally draws such a sharp line between being a monopoly and illegally monopolizing.
The information provided in this article ("Monopolization Under the Sherman Act: A Complete Guide to Section 2") is for general educational and informational purposes only and does not constitute formal legal advice. Reading this content does not create an attorney-client relationship. Laws vary by jurisdiction; consult a licensed attorney for specific legal matters.
Tsvety, LL.M., M.A.
Today’s Quiz
Criminal Procedure
10 real questions, free, no account needed. See how well you actually know criminal procedure.
Free This Week
Open this week’s Legal Concept Presentation
A downloadable, branded slide deck explaining one key legal term in depth — free every week, the full library included with All-Access.
Interactive Legal Suite
Advance Your Legal Analysis
Explore our interactive decision trees, litigation pipeline builders, and procedural court simulators — designed specifically for law students and practitioners.
Access Interactive Tools →Enjoy The Law To Know?
Tell Google you’d like to see more from us in Search and AI Overviews.
Discussion
Log in to join the discussion.
No comments yet — be the first to add to the discussion.