{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.02275960170697013, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0, 'mean_word_length': 5.337837837837838, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Antitrust Regulations and Trade Shows—

The antitrust regulations contained in the Sherman Act apply to trade-show promoters, whether the promoter is an individual, a single company, or an association. The antitrust regulations fall into two categories: restraint of trade and monopolization. Successful restraint-of-trade complaints might involve practices or rules designed to exclude some exhibitors from the show based on competitive or business-related criteria. On the other hand, restrictions based on available space that are even-handedly imposed are generally acceptable. Antitrust monopolization involves two conditions: attempts to monopolize and actual possession of a monopoly. The intent to monopolize by engaging in certain conduct is unlawful, yet difficult to prove in court. Moreover, to prevail in court there also must be evidence of control of a large market share and the likelihood of successfully monopolizing that market. Again, any exclusionary rules that favor some exhibitor over another or that influence a show's standing in the relevant marketplace at the expense of other shows should be avoided. Finally, control of an essential facility-that is, a show that exhibitors believe they “must” participate in to stay competitive-raises questions about how the show's resources and access to them may be fairly allocated by the show promoter without raising antitrust concerns.