Know which monopolization leads deserve consultation time
Ask whether the matter involves a monopolization accusation, a lawsuit or government inquiry, and business activity tied to the U.S., then collect contracts, pricing policies, and market data before the first call.
The exact intake your monopolization defense leads complete
This is the real 8-question guided intake for Monopolization Defense — the same flow your customers finish before you ever pick up the phone.
What a qualified monopolization defense lead should tell you
Defense of a business accused of illegally monopolizing a market or unfairly blocking competitors, covering conduct like exclusive dealing, tying, refusal to deal, or platform access restrictions, where the intake needs to establish the accusation's legal stage and its connection to U.S. commerce.
- (Or Company) Being Accused
- Received Lawsuit, Demand Letter,
- Matter Connected Business Activity
- Business Competitor, Supplier, Distributor,
- Dispute About Pricing, Exclusivity
- This Issue Happen Or
- Outcome Affect Business In
- Have Documents Or Data
The questions your team needs answered
Every monopolization defense intake asks these — and why each one matters.
| Question | Why it matters |
|---|---|
| Are you (or your company) being accused of illegal monopolizing or unfairly blocking competition? | Confirms the prospective client is actually facing a monopolization accusation rather than a general competition question, which is the core scope test for this practice area. |
| Have you received a lawsuit, demand letter, subpoena, or government inquiry about this issue? | A lawsuit, demand letter, subpoena, or government inquiry signals the matter has moved from informal concern to active legal exposure that needs prompt attorney attention. |
| Is the matter connected to business activity in the United States (customers, sales, contracts, or conduct in the U.S.)? | U.S. antitrust law turns on a connection to U.S. commerce, so this answer screens out matters with no jurisdictional hook for a monopolization defense. |
| Is your business a competitor, supplier, distributor, platform, or major seller in the market being discussed? | Whether the business is a competitor, supplier, platform, or major seller shows if it holds the market position that monopolization claims typically target. |
| Is the dispute about pricing, exclusivity deals, refusing to deal, bundling/tying products, or limiting access to a platform or essential service? | Identifies the specific conduct at issue, pricing, exclusivity, bundling, or refusal to deal, so counsel can pre-assess which antitrust theory applies. |
| Did this issue happen or escalate within the last 4 years? | Conduct that escalated within the last four years is more likely to fall within relevant limitations periods and ongoing regulatory attention. |
| Could the outcome affect your business in a major way (large money damages, forced contract changes, limits on how you operate, or risk of penalties)? | Quantifies how much is at stake for the business, helping the firm prioritize matters with real damages or operational exposure over low-stakes questions. |
| Do you have documents or data that relate to the issue (contracts, pricing policies, emails, platform rules, market share or sales data)? | Available contracts, pricing policies, emails, or market data let counsel gauge the strength of the record before committing time to a consultation. |
How Cliont scores monopolization defense leads
Every answer is weighted automatically — no manual review required.
Value signals
- (Or Company) Being Accused: yes
- Received Lawsuit, Demand Letter,: yes
- Matter Connected Business Activity: yes
- Business Competitor, Supplier, Distributor,: yes
- Dispute About Pricing, Exclusivity: yes
- This Issue Happen Or: yes
See the lead your team receives
Monopolization Defense Lead
From first click to qualified lead
Follow people and businesses seeking counsel through one smooth, guided flow.
They land & meet you
Your video greeting plays instantly — a real face instead of a blank form.
They explain the matter
Smart questions adapt to their matter and capture the full scope.
They share the documents
The facts, dates, and any paperwork come attached, so you can assess the matter before the consultation.
You get a ready lead
Scored and qualified — waiting for you to win it.
Built for monopolization defense workflows
| Cliont capability | Monopolization Defense application |
|---|---|
| Weighted qualification scoring | Leads who confirm they've already received a subpoena, demand letter, or government inquiry are automatically scored higher, since that answer carries the heaviest weight in the catalog. |
| Conditional branching logic | When a prospective client answers no to being accused of monopolizing, the intake can skip the deeper questions about pricing, exclusivity, and platform access, keeping the form short for out-of-scope matters. |
| Document collection at intake | Requests contracts, pricing policies, emails, or platform rules before the first call so you can assess the strength of the record before booking a consultation. |
| Jurisdiction and scope filtering | Flags matters with no confirmed connection to U.S. business activity so you can decide whether it's worth a consultation or better referred elsewhere. |
| CRM routing rules | Sends leads that combine an active government inquiry, confirmed U.S. business activity, and major potential business impact directly into the CRM as priority matters. |
Common monopolization defense lead scenarios
Federal inquiry already active
The prospective client's company has already received a subpoena or government inquiry and confirms U.S. business activity, which the intake scores as top priority for an immediate consultation.
Platform accused of foreclosing rivals
A major platform or marketplace faces claims tied to bundling, tying, or blocking access to an essential service, with conduct that escalated within the last four years and real business impact at stake.
Exclusivity dispute with a distributor
No lawsuit has been filed yet, but the dispute centers on exclusive dealing or refusal-to-deal terms in a vendor relationship, giving counsel a lower-urgency but still relevant matter to review.
Old pricing complaint resurfacing
The alleged conduct happened more than four years ago with no formal legal process, helping the firm weigh statute-of-limitations exposure before offering a consultation.
Overseas conduct, weak U.S. connection
The accusation involves sales and contracts outside the U.S., and the intake's answer to the U.S. business activity question flags a weak jurisdictional link for a U.S. monopolization defense.
Connect Cliont to your workflow
Send leads
HubSpot, HighLevel, Salesforce, JobNimbus
Book matters
Google Calendar, Outlook Calendar, Calendly
Notify your team
Email, SMS, Slack
Automate follow-up
Zapier, Webhooks, API
Simple, transparent pricing
Choose the plan that works for your business.
Professional
Unlimited intake forms and leads for your growing business.
- Unlimited intake forms
- Custom video greetings
- AI-powered voice bot
- English + Spanish support
- Automatic lead scoring
- Digital estimates & e-signatures
- Photo, video & file upload
- Advanced analytics dashboard
Pay Per Lead
Only pay when you receive a qualified lead.
- Unlimited intake forms
- Custom video greetings
- AI-powered voice bot
- English + Spanish support
- Automatic lead scoring
- Digital estimates & e-signatures
- Photo, video & file upload
- Charged only for submitted leads
More business and corporate law intake templates
Monopolization Defense lead-intake FAQs
How does the intake separate a formal antitrust accusation from a general competition question?
It first asks whether the business is being accused of illegal monopolizing, then whether a lawsuit, demand letter, subpoena, or government inquiry has already been received, so you can see at a glance whether the matter has moved past an informal concern.
Does the form check whether U.S. antitrust law would even apply?
Yes, one question confirms whether the matter is connected to U.S. customers, sales, contracts, or conduct, since that answer carries a very low weight when the answer is no.
What if the prospective client isn't a dominant player in their market?
The intake asks whether the business is a competitor, supplier, distributor, platform, or major seller in the relevant market, which helps you gauge whether a monopolization theory could realistically apply before you spend consultation time.
Can the intake tell me what kind of conduct is being alleged?
It asks whether the dispute involves pricing, exclusivity deals, refusing to deal, bundling or tying, or limiting access to a platform or essential service, so you know which antitrust theory to prepare for.
Will prospective clients be asked for evidence before the first conversation?
The intake asks whether they have contracts, pricing policies, emails, platform rules, or market share and sales data related to the issue, giving you a sense of the record's strength ahead of the call.
Does the timing of the alleged conduct affect how a lead is scored?
Yes, the intake asks whether the issue happened or escalated within the last four years, which factors into the overall score alongside the other answers.
How does the intake capture what's at stake for the business?
It asks whether the outcome could mean large money damages, forced contract changes, operational limits, or penalty risk, so higher-stakes matters stand out from routine inquiries.
Turn monopolization defense visitors into qualified cases
Give every monopolization defense visitor a guided intake instead of a dead contact form — and get a scored, qualified lead before you book a consultation.