Why Conwood Still Matters
Conwood isn’t just a dusty relic; it’s a living precedent showing that courts can and do punish monopolistic strategies with seven-figure (or more) verdicts. For modern antitrust litigation—whether it’s a sprawling suit against an entertainment behemoth like Live Nation-Ticketmaster or a more narrowly focused claim in the 2-ounce energy shot market—it provides a road map on how courts evaluate the difference between fierce competition and illegal monopolies:
Proving Monopolistic Tactics:
- Exclusionary Tactics
Removing or hiding rival products, using deceptive ads, and pressuring retailers to limit competitor access remain top-tier examples of anticompetitive behavior. - Causation & Harm
Plaintiffs must show a clear link between the defendant’s conduct and real harm—lost sales, suppressed market share, or a ding to brand reputation. - Dominant Market Power
If you’re the big fish (like U.S. Tobacco was in the moist snuff sector, or 5-Hour Energy in the “energy shot” arena), you have an extra burden not to abuse that power. - Financial Consequences
Treble damages can yield enormous judgments that not only compensate victims but also deter other companies from venturing down the same path.
The Road Ahead:
Both the DOJ and Vitamin Energy may look to Conwood for legal and strategic guidance:
