The Sherman Act is divided into three sections. Article 1 describes and prohibits specific means of anti-competitive conduct, while Article 2 deals with the final anti-competitive results. Therefore, these articles complement each other to prevent companies from violating the spirit of the law while technically remaining within the letter of the law. Section 3 simply extends the provisions of section 1 to the U.S. territories and the District of Columbia. In 1914, Congress passed the Federal Trade Commission Act, which prohibited methods of unfair competition and deceptive acts or practices. As of 2020, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) is a federal agency responsible for enforcing federal antitrust laws. The Clayton Act was also passed in 1914 and deals with certain practices that the Sherman Act does not prohibit. For example, the Clayton Act prohibits appointing the same person to make business decisions for competing companies.
Economist Thomas DiLorenzo notes that Senator Sherman sponsored the William McKinley Tariff of 1890 just three months after the Sherman Act, and agrees with the New York Times, which wrote on October 1, 1890: “This so-called antitrust law was passed to deceive the people and pave the way for the passage of this pro-trust tariff law.” The Times further claimed that Sherman was merely supporting this “humbug” of a law “so that party organs can say. ` See! We attacked the trusts. The Republican Party is the enemy of all these rings.  Here is an overview of the three most important federal antitrust laws. Antitrust laws describe illegal mergers and business practices in general terms and leave it to the courts to decide which ones are illegal based on the specifics of each case. The Sherman Act largely prohibits (1) anti-competitive agreements and (2) unilateral conduct that monopolizes or attempts to monopolize the relevant market. The Act empowers the Department of Justice to prosecute to prohibit (i.e., prohibit) conduct that violates the law, and further authorizes private parties who have been violated by conduct that violates the law to sue for three times more money in damages than the violation cost them). Over time, under the Sherman Act, federal courts have developed legislation that makes certain types of anti-competitive conduct illegal per se and subjects other types of conduct to a case-by-case analysis to determine whether the conduct unreasonably restricts trade.
While the Clayton Act maintains the prohibition of anti-competitive mergers and the practice of price discrimination through the Sherman Act, it also addresses issues that the old law did not cover by prohibiting nascent forms of unethical behavior. For example, while the Sherman Act made monopolies illegal, the Clayton Act prohibited operations aimed at leading to the formation of monopolies. The legislative history of the Sherman Act, as well as the decisions of this court interpreting it, show that it was not intended to oversee the transportation or interstate movement of goods and goods. The objective was to prevent restrictions on free competition in trade and commerce, which tended to restrict production, increase prices or otherwise control the market to the detriment of buyers or consumers of goods and services, all of which were considered a particular form of public harm.  For this reason, the term “trade restriction,” which, as will now turn out, had a well-understood meaning at common law, was used as a means of defining prohibited activities .. . .