“The active supervision requirement stems from the recognition that where a private party is engaging in the anticompetitive activity, there is a real danger that he is acting to further his own interests, rather than the go-vernmental interests of the State. The requirement is designed to ensure that the state-action doctrine will shelter only the particular anticompetitive acts that, in the judgment of the State, actually further state regulatory policies. To accomplish this purpose, the active supervision requirement mandates that the State exercise ultimate control over the challenged anticompetitive conduct.” Patrick v. Burget, 486 U.S. 94, 100–01, 108 S.Ct. 1658, 1663 (1988).
active supervision
active supervision. Antitrust. Under the test for determining whether a private entity may claim a state-action exemption from the antitrust laws, the right of the state to review the entity’s anticompetitive acts and to disap-prove those acts that do not promote state policy. See STATE-ACTION DOCTRINE; MIDCAL TEST. [Cases: Monopolies 12(15.5). C.J.S. Monopolies §§ 136, 138–143.]
