Kingsfield
Two products How it works PII Tokenizer Writing
Connect the Judge
Home › Research › Antitrust & Competition › Monopolization under Sherman Section 2
Kingsfield · Research · Antitrust & Competition

What federal statute makes it unlawful to monopolize a market?

Published 2026-06-23 · U.S. federal law

Sherman Act Section 2 reaches single-firm conduct. It makes it unlawful to monopolize, attempt to monopolize, or combine or conspire to monopolize any part of interstate or foreign trade or commerce.

The answer

The single-firm offense

15 U.S.C. § 2 declares it a felony for any person to monopolize, attempt to monopolize, or combine or conspire with any other person to monopolize any part of the trade or commerce among the several States or with foreign nations. Unlike Section 1, the core offense reaches conduct by a single firm that possesses monopoly power, without any need to prove an agreement.

Three distinct theories

The section states three separate offenses: completed monopolization, attempt to monopolize, and conspiracy to monopolize. Each carries its own elements, and the attempt and conspiracy theories do not require that the defendant already hold a monopoly.

The judged input

What the AI drafted

Submitted to the judge

This is an excerpt from a draft monopolization advisory memo — the kind of work product a lawyer generates with a legal-AI drafting tool, then has to stand behind. Kingsfield does not write it; it rules on the citations the model put in it. This draft cites two authorities; one of them is wrong.

AI draft excerpt — monopolization advisory memo
The Company holds an estimated 70% share of the relevant product market, which exposes its planned course of exclusionary conduct to single-firm liability. Under 15 U.S.C. § 2, it is unlawful to monopolize, attempt to monopolize, or conspire to monopolize any part of interstate trade or commerce, and that offense reaches unilateral conduct by a dominant firm. We note that the requirement of a contract, combination, or conspiracy in restraint of trade is supplied by 15 U.S.C. § 1. We advise the Company to document the legitimate business justification for each challenged practice.

The judge ruled on every citation as the draft used it — it accepted 15 U.S.C. § 2 and rejected 15 U.S.C. § 1. Here is why.

The verdict

How Kingsfield ruled

Ruled 2026-06-23

Each citation in the draft above was submitted to the Kingsfield judge and ruled against the primary-law corpus — Accept, Reject, or Inconclusive, per citation. These are live verdicts, not editorial. Each card shows the claim the draft made and the verbatim authority the verdict was rendered against.

Accept15 U.S.C. § 2

The draft claimed: It is unlawful for any person to monopolize, attempt to monopolize, or combine or conspire to monopolize any part of the trade or commerce among the several States or with foreign nations.

“§ 2. Monopolizing trade a felony; penalty Every person who shall monopolize, or attempt to monopolize, or combine or conspire with any other person or persons, to monopolize any part of the trade or commerce among the several States, or with foreign nations, shall be deemed guilty of a felony, and, on conviction thereof, shall be punished”

Cite found; proposition supported by the cited text.

Reject15 U.S.C. § 1

The draft claimed: Section 1 reaches single-firm monopolization by a company that possesses monopoly power, even where there is no agreement with any other party.

Cite found, but the cited text does not support the claim. 15 U.S.C. 1 prohibits a contract, combination, or conspiracy in restraint of trade and requires concerted action by two or more parties; single-firm monopolization is governed by 15 U.S.C. 2. Regenerate with the correct authority.

Run your own work through the judge

Kingsfield rules on every citation, quote, and proposition your AI produces, against the primary law we cover. Accept, Reject, or Inconclusive, per citation, with a signed Audit Capsule.

Connect the Judge See the architecture

This page is legal information, not legal advice, and does not create an attorney-client relationship. The draft shown is an illustration of a typical AI answer; verdicts reflect the cited authority in the Kingsfield corpus as of the ruling date shown above.

Kingsfield

The judge for legal AI.
A WalkerNash Development LLC product.

© 2026 WalkerNash Development LLC. All rights reserved.
Built in the United States. No third-party trackers.
Product
  • Two products
  • How it works
  • Audit Capsule
  • Practice areas
  • Cloud Judge · MCP
  • PII Tokenizer
For Firms
  • Pricing
  • Privilege
  • DPA
  • Trust posture
  • Research
  • Verified attorneys
  • Status
Company
  • About WalkerNash
  • Crucible (compliance)
  • Writing
  • Contact
  • Careers
  • Press
v0.9.4 · 2026.05.26kingsfield.ai