Vetoed Antitrust Practice Act

[MessiFG7]

A
BILL
To

To prevent monopolization and unfair market competitive practices.

The people of Democracy Craft, through their elected Representatives in the Congress and the force of law ordained to that Congress by the people through the constitution, do hereby enact the following provisions into law:

Short Title and Enactment
(1) This Act may be cited as the “Antitrust Practice Act”.
(2) This Act shall be enacted immediately upon its signage.
(3) This Act has been drafted by Representative Figomessi77
(4) The Act has been co-sponsored by: Representative xlayzur

Reasons:
(1) There are currently no laws preventing businesses from practicing unfair market competition
(2) Unfair competitive practices can harm the economy by taking out small businesses and creating a harder barrier of entry into the market.

1 - Price Discrimination
(1) It shall be unlawful for any person to engage in commerce, in the course of such commerce the act of charging customers different prices for the same product where the price differences are not related to the cost differences in order to lessen competition or tend to form a monopoly in such market, or to prevent, destroy, or injure any person who either grants or knowingly receive such benefits of such discrimination, or with customers of either of them.
(2) Violation of this section shall be subject to the following punishments:
(a) 1st Offense - $1000
(b) 2nd Offense - $1500
(c) 3rd Offense - $2000 + 10-minute jail time
(d) 4th+ Offenses - Courts may fine up to $10000 + 15-minute jail time

2 - Exclusive Dealing
(1) It shall be unlawful for an individual in commerce, in the course of such commerce to fix a price charged therefor, or discount from, or rebate upon, such price, on the condition, agreement, or understanding that a retailer cannot carry a product of another competitor in order to lessen competition or tend to form a monopoly in such market.
(2) Violation of this section shall be subjected to the following punishments:
(a) 1st Offense - $500
(b) 2nd Offense - $1000
(c) 3rd Offense - $1500 + 10-minute jail time
(d) 4th+ Offenses - Courts may fine up to $7000 + 15-minute jail time

3 - Tying Contracts
(1) It shall be unlawful for an individual to engage in commerce, in the course of such commerce, to lease of make a sales or contract for sale of goods, attempt to, on the condition, and in agreement with, to where the sale of one product depends on the purchase of another product(s) in order to lessen competition or tend to form a monopoly.
(2) Violation of this section shall be subjected to the following punishments:
(a) 1st Offense - $250
(b) 2nd Offense - $500
(c) 3rd Offense - $750 + 5-minute jail time
(d) 4th+ Offenses - Courts may fine up to $2000 + 10-minute jail time

4- Interlocking Directorates
(1) It shall be unlawful for an individual to engage in, attempting to, on the condition, or in agreement with, at the same time, serve as a member of the board of directors or officer in two or more corporations that are in the same industry in order to lessen competition or tend to form a monopoly.
(2) Violation of this section shall be subjected to the following punishments:
(a) 1st Offense - $2000
(b) 2nd Offense - $3500
(c) 3rd Offense - $7000 + 20-minute jail time
(d) 4th+ Offenses - Courts may fine up to $15000 or up to 10% of the company balance +
60-minute jail time.

5 - Enforcement
(1) The Department of Education and Commerce shall have the authority to investigate, fine, and charge individuals who commit any of these anti-competition practices mentioned in the Antitrust Practice Act.
(2) The Department of Justice shall have the authority to arrest individuals who violate the
Antitrust Practice Act.
(3) The Department of Education and Commerce and the Department of Justice shall inform and provide necessary assistance to the AGO for prosecutions.

 

[218218Consumer]

Veto

This bill has been vetoed for the following reasons:

1. Honestly, the writing is incredibly confusing. I understand the bill's intention of grounding itself in real, working antitrust law by adopting much of its content from real American laws. However, those laws (found in the Clayton Antitrust Act) were written more than a hundred years ago, and the bill would deeply benefit from either more modern or direct language. With all due respect to the intentions of this bill, which is plenty, I believe that new business owners attempting to familiarize themselves with corporate laws will be unable to comprehend this bill's actual content, or at the very least, they'll find it difficult to do so. There's a lot of stuff in here that just isn't necessary: the use of excessively long sentences and phrases such as "on the condition or in agreement with" doesn't really do much for clarity in this bill, and in fact, it undermines it. Good laws are accessible laws—they are laws that most people can reasonably understand and stray from breaking, which is especially important considering that we're a Minecraft server first and a government simulator second.

2. This should be an amendment to the Corporate Crimes Act, which already has a section on antitrust law. Keeping all corporate laws in one place makes things simpler for both the government and regular players.

3. Regulations against interlocking directorates would outlaw a process that is less harmful than it is common. With fewer than 300 members, our active player base is pretty small, so naturally, many in the business community will find themselves working in multiple companies. Notable examples include Wuutie's work in Binance and Onyx Exchange as well as Chief Justice Westray's work in both Redmont Times and Democracy Daily. These players have both made massive contributions to our economy and free press through their work in the private sector, and they have partially done so through overseeing leadership in multiple companies of the same industry. Unless Congress can produce examples of interlocking directorates having anticompetitive effects on the market, I cannot sign any bill that outlaws them. Legislation of this kind simply isn't practical for an economy as small as Redmont's.