franchise, like the reserve clause discussed in Flood, is an integral part of the business of professional baseball and falls within the exemption. In the past, we have deemed it proper to look to decisions made under corollary federal statutes “of a similar character for the principle by which to construe our own statute.” Duluth Bd. of Trade, 107 Minn. at 517, 121 N.W. at 399. Accordingly, we hold that the conduct of the Twins being investigated by the Attorney General is exempt from Minnesota, as well as federal, antitrust laws. Enforcement of the CIDs against the Twins is therefore outside the scope of the Attorney General’s authority because no enforcement action could follow. See Phoenix Bd. of Realtors, Inc. v. United States Dept. of Justice, 521 F.Supp. 828, 830 (D.Ariz.1981) (<HOLDING>) (citation omitted). Because as a matter of law
holding that a plaintiff must show antitrust injury in order to bring an antitrust lawsuit holding that plaintiff must show antitrust injury meaning injury of the type the antitrust laws were intended to prevent and which flows from defendants unlawful acts holding that the fcc was not given the power to decide antitrust issues and that its actions do not prevent enforcement of the antitrust laws in federal courts holding that there must be a causal connection between the alleged antitrust violation and the antitrust injury for there to be antitrust standing holding that an activity which is exempt from the antitrust laws cannot form the basis of an antitrust investigation