Editing United States antitrust law (section)

===Other===
Fourth, the government may [[Government-granted monopoly|grant monopolies]] in certain industries such as [[utilities]] and infrastructure where multiple players are seen as unfeasible or impractical.<ref name=areeda2>Areeda, pp. 80-92.</ref>

Fifth, [[insurance]] is allowed limited antitrust exemptions as provided by the [[McCarran-Ferguson Act]] of 1945.<ref>{{UnitedStatesCode|15|1011}}, ''[[et seq]]''.</ref>

Sixth, M&A transactions in the defense sector are often subject to greater antitrust scrutiny from the [[United States Department of Justice|Department of Justice]] and the [[Federal Trade Commission]].<ref>{{cite journal|last1=Dubrow|first1=Jon|title=Leading Antitrust Considerations for Aerospace & Defense M&A Transactions|url=https://www.transactionadvisors.com/insights/leading-antitrust-considerations-aerospace-defense-ma-transactions|journal=Transaction Advisors|issn=2329-9134|access-date=2015-04-29|archive-date=2015-05-28|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150528033335/https://www.transactionadvisors.com/insights/leading-antitrust-considerations-aerospace-defense-ma-transactions|url-status=dead}}</ref>
*''[[United States v. South-Eastern Underwriters Association]]'', 322 U.S. 533 (1944) the insurance industry was not exempt from antitrust regulation.
*''[[Credit Suisse v. Billing]]'', 551 U.S. 264 (2007) 7 to 1, the industries regulated by the [[Securities Act 1933]] and the [[Securities and Exchange Act 1934]] are exempt from antitrust lawsuits.
*''[[Parker v. Brown]]'', 317 U.S. 341 (1943) actions by state governments were held to be exempt from antitrust law, given that there was no original legislative intent to cover anything other than business combinations.
*''[[Goldfarb v. Virginia State Bar]]'', 421 U.S. 773 (1975) the Virginia State Bar, which was delegated power to set price schedules for lawyers fees, was an unlawful price fixing. It was no longer exempt from the Sherman Act, and constituted a per se infringement.
*''[[California Retail Liquor Dealers Assn. v. Midcal Aluminum, Inc.]]'', 445 U.S. 97 (1980) the state of California acted contrary to the Sherman Act 1890 §1 by setting fair trade wine price schedules. 
*''[[Rice v. Norman Williams Co.]]'', 458 U.S. 654 (1982) the Sherman Act did not prohibit a California law which prohibited the importation of goods that were not authorised to be imported by the manufacturer. 
*''[[Tritent International Corp. v. Commonwealth of Kentucky]]'', 467 F.3d 547 (2006) Kentucky had not acted unlawfully by giving effect to a Tobacco Master Settlement Agreement, because there was no illegal behavior in it. 
*''[[United States v. Trans-Missouri Freight Association]]'', 166 U.S. 290 (1897) the antitrust laws applied to the railroad industry, even though there was a comprehensive scheme of legislation applying to the railroads already. No specific exemption had been given.
*''[[Silver v. New York Stock Exchange]]'', 373 U.S. 341 (1963) the NYSE was not exempt from antitrust regulation, even though many of its activities were regulated by the [[Securities and Exchange Act 1934]]. 
*''[[American Society of Mechanical Engineers v. Hydrolevel Corporation]]'', 456 U.S. 556 (1982) 6 to 3, that the [[American Society of Mechanical Engineers]], a non profit standard developer had violated the Sherman Act by giving information to one competitor, used against another.
*''[[National Collegiate Athletic Association v. Alston]],'' 594 U.S. ___ (2021) 9 to 0, the [[National Collegiate Athletic Association|National Collegiate Athletic Association's]] caps on player compensation, most notably its restrictions on education benefits for players, restrain competition among colleges and thereby violate the nation's antitrust laws.