Jeffrey Johnson is a legal writer with a focus on personal injury. He has worked on personal injury and sovereign immunity litigation in addition to experience in family, estate, and criminal law. He earned a J.D. from the University of Baltimore and has worked in legal offices and non-profits in Maryland, Texas, and North Carolina. He has also earned an MFA in screenwriting from Chapman Univer...

Full Bio →

Written by

UPDATED: May 2, 2012

Advertiser Disclosure

It’s all about you. We want to help you make the right legal decisions.

We strive to help you make confident insurance and legal decisions. Finding trusted and reliable insurance quotes and legal advice should be easy. This doesn’t influence our content. Our opinions are our own.

Editorial Guidelines: We are a free online resource for anyone interested in learning more about legal topics and insurance. Our goal is to be an objective, third-party resource for everything legal and insurance related. We update our site regularly, and all content is reviewed by experts.

There is considerable overlap between the California and federal antitrust and trade regulation laws. As a result, many legal problems in this area can be addressed under either or both sets of laws.

  • California’s Cartwright Act resembles the federal Sherman Act, which prohibits combinations in restraint of trade. Both forbid offenses such as price-fixing, boycotts, and other unreasonable restraints carried out by two or more persons or businesses acting jointly.
  • California’s Unfair Practices Act bears some resemblance to the federal Robinson-Patman Act, in that both limit the use of pricing practices deemed to be inimical to competition. The Robinson-Patman Act prohibits price discrimination. The Unfair Practices Act prohibits certain types of price discrimination, as well as sales below cost in certain circumstances.
  • California’s Unfair Competition Law resembles the Federal Trade Commission Act. Both generally prohibit unfair business practices and methods of competition that unfairly injure consumers. Neither specifies the precise acts that are forbidden; both instead leave that to be determined on a case-by-case basis.
  • California’s Unfair Advertising Statute is interpreted to prohibit the same advertising offenses as Federal Trade Commission Act 5.