LAD 29: Clayton Anti-Trust Act of 1914

Similarities to the Sherman Anti-Trust Act:

Both Acts struggled with limiting anti-competitive practices that hurt consumers. They also were meant to limit the power that trusts and monopolies had amassed under the more laissez faire government policies during the golden age. During the following progressive era, many political figures began to reestablish a strong government in order to limit the power of trusts. Both Acts are federal laws, which spread their reach and importance.

Differences from the Sherman Anti-Trust Act:

The Clayton Anti-Trust Act was meant as a supplement to the Sherman Anti-Trust Act, therefore it is much more specific. The Sherman Anti-Trust Act prohibited anything, such as trusts, that restrained interstate or foreign trade. This caused the Sherman Anti-Trust Act to be much broader than the Clayton Anti-Trust Act. The Clayton Act was meant to further enforce the previous Anti-Trust Act, it regulated practices that were detrimental to competition and, therefore, the common consumer.

Connections with the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) and the Department of Justice (DOJ):

The Clayton Act was enforced by the FTC and the DOJ. The Clayton Act set up how the FTC and DOJ can respond to violations and respond to anti-trust issues.


Trusts became increasingly destructive to competition that helped consumers because of the laissez faire government

The Sherman Anti-Trust Act

The Sherman Anti-Trust Act was the precursor to the Clayton Anti-Trust Act and included many of the same ideas and although it was unsuccessful in ending trusts, as it actually was used against unions who decided to go on strike since strikes interrupted trade, the Act was a needed first step against the monopolies that controlled America during the gilded age.