PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in Senate · Oct 29, 2003
Antitrust Criminal Penalty Enhancement and Reform Act of 2003 - Provides that in a civil action alleging a violation of the Sherman Act or of any similar State law based on conduct covered by an antitrust leniency agreement, the amount of damages recovered by a claimant from an applicant and cooperating individuals who satisfy this Act's requirements shall not exceed that portion of the actual damages sustained by the claimant that is attributable to the commerce done by the applicant in the goods or services affected by the violation (thus shielding organizations that cooperate with the Government from liability for treble damages).
Provides that an applicant or cooperating individual satisfies this Act's requirements if the court determines that such applicant or individual has provided satisfactory cooperation to the claimant, including: (1) providing a full account of all facts known that are potentially relevant to the civil action; and (2) furnishing all potentially relevant items that are in the applicant's or cooperating individual's possession or control.
Amends: (1) the Sherman Act to increase maximum prison sentences (from three years to ten years) and raise the maximum fine for individuals (from $350,000 to $1 million) for restraint of trade among the States, monopolizing trade, and other restraints of trade; and (2) the Antitrust Procedures and Penalties Act (Tunney Act) to require (current law allows) the court to consider specified factors, including the competitive impact of a judgment.
People & committees
Sen. DeWine, Mike [R-OH] · R–OH
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary.
Introduced in Senate
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We currently store references to these documents.
No related bills are listed in this snapshot. This does not establish whether the proposal has appeared in earlier Congresses.
Source last updated: Aug 10, 2026. Consult Congress.gov for the current record.
AI Conversation Starters
Choose a perspective, copy a prompt, and paste it into your preferred AI. Each prompt includes the bill version and available official source links, and asks for counterarguments as well as supporting evidence.
Analyze S.1797 as objectively as possible. Explain its main provisions, who would be affected, possible benefits and harms, implementation, exceptions, and uncertainties. Present the strongest arguments for and against it, and identify evidence needed to assess its public impact.
Examine S.1797 through a progressive lens, focusing on fairness, access, economic inequality, and effects on vulnerable communities. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and distinguish stated goals from demonstrated outcomes.
Examine S.1797 through a conservative lens, focusing on fiscal responsibility, institutional stability, federalism, and the scope of government. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and any provisions that challenge this perspective.
Examine S.1797 through a civil-liberties and limited-government lens. Consider individual rights, privacy, voluntary choice, accountability, and government power. Explain tradeoffs, possible safeguards, and the strongest counterarguments without assuming the proposal is beneficial or harmful.