Edited by Albert A. Foer and Jonathan W. Cuneo
Eric L. Cramer and Daniel C. Simons1 Introduction Antitrust violations often reverberate widely throughout a market and the economy more generally, impacting a myriad of market participants in a broad variety of ways. Hence, for a single violation, there may be multiple victims, each with potentially cognizable antitrust claims. Under the literal and broad terms of the US antitrust laws, all persons or entities suffering harm to their ‘business or property’2 due to anticompetitive conduct theoretically have a claim to recover three times their damages resulting from that conduct. However, the courts have placed prudential limits on both the types of entities that can bring suit for violations of the Sherman Act and the circumstances under which such suits can be brought. These limitations come in the form of a multi-pronged test that examines the claimant, the linkage between the alleged harm and the challenged conduct, the type of claim asserted, and, in certain circumstances, the complexity of the proof needed to prove the claim. Because of this test, determining whether a plaintiff has standing to bring an antitrust claim can sometimes present complex and difficult issues,3 and thus has generated a myriad of decisions over the years. Chief among the restrictions on who can bring a claim is the need for the private antitrust plaintiff to demonstrate ‘antitrust injury.’ For that, the law first looks to see if a private plaintiff has sustained the type of injury the antitrust laws are meant to prevent.4 Second, the plaintiff’s injury...
You are not authenticated to view the full text of this chapter or article.