AND · 15usc1:injury
Under Brunswick Corp. v. Pueblo Bowl-O-Mat, Inc. (429 U.S. 477, 489 (1977)), plaintiff must prove "antitrust injury, which is to say injury of the type the antitrust laws were intended to prevent and that flows from that which makes defendants' acts unlawful" — harm to competition, not merely harm to an individual competitor.
Exact element source
is declared to be illegalSource:
docroot/ir/usc/title15.jsonl#title15_sec1; Unicode character offsets [220:245] (end exclusive); SHA-256 9c248965c2c712de1e3f3d52a17be4c90dfdcac5d3f9fea0b7220b164e2c2973.Routes and case patterns
| Route | Definition | Merits instance blocks | Distinct merits cases | Examples (up to 3 cases per count group) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unclassified route provisional; 9 observed cases | no definition yet | 0 Satisfied 0; not satisfied 0; excluded context 9 | 0 | Used only in non-merits blocks (9). Excluded context examples:North Jackson Pharmacy, Inc. v. Caremark Rx, Inc. — 385 F. Supp. 2d 740 (2005) · United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois · 2005 — not reached · basis not recorded (15usc1: author: Fable · QA: PASS (QA1, neov2/qa/cases-v1-QA1.md)) · rule-announced/merits · not counted In re Interest Rate Swaps Antitrust Litig. — 351 F. Supp. 3d 698 (2018) · United States District Court for the Southern District of New York · 2018 — not reached · basis not recorded (15usc1: author: Fable · historical QA: PASS (QA2, neov2/qa/cases-QA2.md) · changed after review; current content not independently reviewed) · applied/merits · not counted Harvey v. Fearless Farris Wholesale, Inc. — 589 F.2d 451 (1979) · United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1979 — not reached · basis not recorded (15usc1: author: Fable · not independently reviewed) · applied/merits · not counted |
| antitrust-injury provisional; 5 observed cases | Whether the plaintiff's loss is of the type the antitrust laws were intended to prevent and flows from what makes the conduct unlawful (Brunswick). | 6 Satisfied 3; not satisfied 3; excluded context 0 | 5 | City of Rockford v. Mallinckrodt ARD, Inc. — 360 F. Supp. 3d 730 (2019) · United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois · 2019 — satisfied · pleaded (15usc1: author: Flash1 · QA: FIX (Fable, neov2/cases/TRIAGE-Flash.md)) · applied/merits · counted Maui Jim, Inc. v. Smartbuy Guru Enters. — 386 F. Supp. 3d 926 (2019) · United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois · 2019 — not · pleaded (15usc1: author: Flash1 · QA: FIX (Fable, neov2/cases/TRIAGE-Flash.md)) · applied/merits · counted Levine v. Central Florida Medical Affiliates, Inc. — 864 F. Supp. 1175 (1994) · United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida · 1994 — not · no-evidence (15usc1: author: Fable · not independently reviewed) · applied/merits · counted Levine v. Central Florida Medical Affiliates, Inc. — 864 F. Supp. 1175 (1994) · United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida · 1994 — not · no-evidence (15usc1: author: Fable · not independently reviewed) · applied/merits · counted |
| fact-of-damage provisional; provisional (1 case) | Whether the plaintiff proved that it was in fact harmed by the violation. | 1 Satisfied 1; not satisfied 0; excluded context 0 | 1 | Ford Motor Co. v. Webster's Auto Sales, Inc. — 361 F.2d 874 (1966) · United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · 1966 — satisfied · proved (15usc1: author: Fable · historical QA: PASS (QA2, neov2/qa/cases-QA2.md) · changed after review; current content not independently reviewed) · applied/merits · counted |
How courts decided this element
| Case | Element | Holding and scope | Pattern | Exact source quotations |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| North Jackson Pharmacy, Inc. v. Caremark Rx, Inc. — 385 F. Supp. 2d 740 (2005) · United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois · 2005 — not reached (15usc1: author: Fable · QA: PASS (QA1, neov2/qa/cases-v1-QA1.md)) | Private antitrust injury and fact of damage (Clayton Act §§ 4, 16; Brunswick Corp. v. Pueblo Bowl-O-Mat) | not_reached Excluded from merits counts rule-announced / merits | Unspecified route | No source quotation recorded for this block. |
| In re Interest Rate Swaps Antitrust Litig. — 351 F. Supp. 3d 698 (2018) · United States District Court for the Southern District of New York · 2018 — not reached (15usc1: author: Fable · historical QA: PASS (QA2, neov2/qa/cases-QA2.md) · changed after review; current content not independently reviewed) | Private antitrust injury and fact of damage (Clayton Act §§ 4, 16; Brunswick Corp. v. Pueblo Bowl-O-Mat) | not_reached Excluded from merits counts applied / merits | Unspecified route | No source quotation recorded for this block. |
| City of Rockford v. Mallinckrodt ARD, Inc. — 360 F. Supp. 3d 730 (2019) · United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois · 2019 — satisfied · pleaded (15usc1: author: Flash1 · QA: FIX (Fable, neov2/cases/TRIAGE-Flash.md)) | Private antitrust injury and fact of damage (Clayton Act §§ 4, 16; Brunswick Corp. v. Pueblo Bowl-O-Mat) | satisfied Counted merits instance applied / merits basis: pleaded; party: City of Rockford, Illinois (self-insured health-plan payor that paid ESI for Acthar; plaintiff); Mallinckrodt plc and Mallinckrodt ARD, Inc., formerly Questcor (manufacturer of Acthar; defendants); Express Scripts Holding Co. and subsidiaries ESI, CuraScript, Accredo, UBC (exclusive distributor of Acthar; defendants); theory: manufacturer and its exclusive distributor conspired to fix and inflate Acthar's price (exclusive dealing arrangement "ASAP") and to keep the only rival drug, Synacthen, off the market; subject: party=City of Rockford, Illinois (self-insured health-plan payor that paid ESI for Acthar; plaintiff); Mallinckrodt plc and Mallinckrodt ARD, Inc., formerly Questcor (manufacturer of Acthar; defendants); Express Scripts Holding Co. and subsidiaries ESI, CuraScript, Accredo, UBC (exclusive distributor of Acthar; defendants); theory=manufacturer and its exclusive distributor conspired to fix and inflate Acthar's price (exclusive dealing arrangement "ASAP") and to keep the only rival drug, Synacthen, off the market | payor paying supracompetitive drug prices attributed to restricted distribution and a shelved rival product | The third prong requires that an antitrust plaintiff must allege that the "claimed injuries are of the type the antitrust laws were intended to prevent and reflect the anticompetitive effect of either the violation of or anticompetitive acts made possible by the violation."Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f_supp_3d_360.jsonl#/f-supp-3d/360/0730-01; Unicode character offsets [39655:39929] (end exclusive); SHA-256 1f8910a323ccf3d6ebebad02d768209fa54f8d2dede5be52740a926291937b54.Rockford alleges that defendants were able to charge higher prices for Acthar by restricting distribution of Acthar through the ASAP.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f_supp_3d_360.jsonl#/f-supp-3d/360/0730-01; Unicode character offsets [40430:40563] (end exclusive); SHA-256 1f8910a323ccf3d6ebebad02d768209fa54f8d2dede5be52740a926291937b54.Had Novartis sold the rights to Synacthen to one of the other bidders that planned to bring Acthar to market, Rockford alleges that purchasers would have had a low-cost alternative to Acthar.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f_supp_3d_360.jsonl#/f-supp-3d/360/0730-01; Unicode character offsets [40954:41145] (end exclusive); SHA-256 1f8910a323ccf3d6ebebad02d768209fa54f8d2dede5be52740a926291937b54.Thus, Rockford has satisfied the "antitrust injury" prong and, accordingly, the court finds that Rockford has stated a § 1 claim.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f_supp_3d_360.jsonl#/f-supp-3d/360/0730-01; Unicode character offsets [41704:41833] (end exclusive); SHA-256 1f8910a323ccf3d6ebebad02d768209fa54f8d2dede5be52740a926291937b54. |
| Maui Jim, Inc. v. Smartbuy Guru Enters. — 386 F. Supp. 3d 926 (2019) · United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois · 2019 — not · pleaded (15usc1: author: Flash1 · QA: FIX (Fable, neov2/cases/TRIAGE-Flash.md)) | Private antitrust injury and fact of damage (Clayton Act §§ 4, 16; Brunswick Corp. v. Pueblo Bowl-O-Mat) | not Counted merits instance applied / merits basis: pleaded; party: SmartBuy Guru Enterprises and affiliates (unauthorized online discount reseller; defendants and counterclaimants - the § 1 claimant); Maui Jim, Inc. (sunglasses manufacturer; plaintiff and counterclaim defendant); theory: Count III counterclaim: Maui Jim's contracts with authorized distributors set minimum retail prices, restrict resale, and cut off retailers that supply SBG; subject: party=SmartBuy Guru Enterprises and affiliates (unauthorized online discount reseller; defendants and counterclaimants - the § 1 claimant); Maui Jim, Inc. (sunglasses manufacturer; plaintiff and counterclaim defendant); theory=Count III counterclaim: Maui Jim's contracts with authorized distributors set minimum retail prices, restrict resale, and cut off retailers that supply SBG The court holds the claimant to its own pleading label ("direct competitor") and treats the supply-cut-off theory as inconsistent with it and unsupported by authority (waived as undeveloped). | self-described direct competitor complaining of the rival's artificially high resale prices and of losing its supply | "A competitor may not 'recover damages for any conspiracy ... to charge higher than competitive prices," because although "[s]uch conduct would indeed violate the Sherman Act," it cannot injure a claimant competitor because competitors " 'stand to gain from any conspiracy to raise the market price.' "Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f_supp_3d_386.jsonl#/f-supp-3d/386/0926-01; Unicode character offsets [30122:30424] (end exclusive); SHA-256 a632803aa5361679adfc6a9af0138464dd4fdb0508bedabc55ff7554e2ed4536.SBG squarely characterizes itself as a "direct competitor of Maui Jim."Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f_supp_3d_386.jsonl#/f-supp-3d/386/0926-01; Unicode character offsets [30829:30900] (end exclusive); SHA-256 a632803aa5361679adfc6a9af0138464dd4fdb0508bedabc55ff7554e2ed4536.SBG nevertheless alleges it was harmed "because Maui Jim has unlawfully restricted and seeks to eliminate [SBG's] supply of Maui Jim sunglasses."Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f_supp_3d_386.jsonl#/f-supp-3d/386/0926-01; Unicode character offsets [31681:31826] (end exclusive); SHA-256 a632803aa5361679adfc6a9af0138464dd4fdb0508bedabc55ff7554e2ed4536.Maui Jim has allegedly threatened to terminate and has actually terminated retailers that have sold authentic goods to SBG.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f_supp_3d_386.jsonl#/f-supp-3d/386/0926-01; Unicode character offsets [5681:5804] (end exclusive); SHA-256 a632803aa5361679adfc6a9af0138464dd4fdb0508bedabc55ff7554e2ed4536.SBG's antitrust claim therefore does not allege antitrust injury because, as a "direct competitor of Maui Jim," Maui Jim's alleged contracts resulted in "artificially high prices for Maui Jim sunglasses."Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f_supp_3d_386.jsonl#/f-supp-3d/386/0926-01; Unicode character offsets [31106:31310] (end exclusive); SHA-256 a632803aa5361679adfc6a9af0138464dd4fdb0508bedabc55ff7554e2ed4536. |
| Levine v. Central Florida Medical Affiliates, Inc. — 864 F. Supp. 1175 (1994) · United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida · 1994 — not · no-evidence (15usc1: author: Fable · not independently reviewed) | Private antitrust injury and fact of damage (Clayton Act §§ 4, 16; Brunswick Corp. v. Pueblo Bowl-O-Mat) | not Counted merits instance applied / merits basis: no-evidence; party: Sand Lake, ORHS/ORMC; count: Count III (concerted suspension of hospital privileges); subject: party=Sand Lake, ORHS/ORMC; count=Count III (concerted suspension of hospital privileges) Five-month suspension at one hospital system harmed the competitor, not competition: no reduction in services, number of internists, or effect on price. Distinguished from cases where the exclusion effectively ended the doctor's ability to practice in the area. | suspended-physician-still-practicing-elsewhere | Plaintiff asserts that Sand Lake, ORMC and another internist conspired to blacklist Plaintiff by summarily suspending his staff and emergency room privileges and circulating to other doctors the notice of his suspension.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f_supp_864.jsonl#/f-supp/864/1175-01; Unicode character offsets [3978:4198] (end exclusive); SHA-256 06c1960d1dc678061d6eacfba6f9a02c11fb0fa2859d08dc7ca865e6700f0fb3.During this period of time, Plaintiff had staff privileges at Florida Hospital’s several campuses, Charter Hospital and Glenbeigh.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f_supp_864.jsonl#/f-supp/864/1175-01; Unicode character offsets [6729:6859] (end exclusive); SHA-256 06c1960d1dc678061d6eacfba6f9a02c11fb0fa2859d08dc7ca865e6700f0fb3.Immediately after his suspension, Plaintiff began using Florida Hospital for the hospitalization of his patients.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f_supp_864.jsonl#/f-supp/864/1175-01; Unicode character offsets [6936:7049] (end exclusive); SHA-256 06c1960d1dc678061d6eacfba6f9a02c11fb0fa2859d08dc7ca865e6700f0fb3.During the time his privileges were suspended at Sand Lake and ORMC, Plaintiff was able to admit patients to several other hospitals.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f_supp_864.jsonl#/f-supp/864/1175-01; Unicode character offsets [10956:11089] (end exclusive); SHA-256 06c1960d1dc678061d6eacfba6f9a02c11fb0fa2859d08dc7ca865e6700f0fb3.To be a proper party, a plaintiff must have suffered an antitrust injury and must be an efficient enforcer of the antitrust laws.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f_supp_864.jsonl#/f-supp/864/1175-01; Unicode character offsets [4861:4990] (end exclusive); SHA-256 06c1960d1dc678061d6eacfba6f9a02c11fb0fa2859d08dc7ca865e6700f0fb3.Whatever may be said about his personal injuries, his suspension from ORMC and Sand Lake does not constitute an antitrust injury.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f_supp_864.jsonl#/f-supp/864/1175-01; Unicode character offsets [13281:13410] (end exclusive); SHA-256 06c1960d1dc678061d6eacfba6f9a02c11fb0fa2859d08dc7ca865e6700f0fb3. |
| Levine v. Central Florida Medical Affiliates, Inc. — 864 F. Supp. 1175 (1994) · United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida · 1994 — not · no-evidence (15usc1: author: Fable · not independently reviewed) | Private antitrust injury and fact of damage (Clayton Act §§ 4, 16; Brunswick Corp. v. Pueblo Bowl-O-Mat) | not Counted merits instance applied / merits basis: no-evidence; party: CFMA, Healthchoice; count: Count I (exclusion from closed-panel PPO); theory: plaintiff wants admission to the closed panel (deposition version); subject: party=CFMA, Healthchoice; count=Count I (exclusion from closed-panel PPO); theory=plaintiff wants admission to the closed panel (deposition version) Court assumes the closed panel is an illegal restriction; a rival who wants in on the restricted arrangement is injured by being denied its fruits, not by reduced competition (Todorov). | plaintiff-seeks-share-of-supracompetitive-profits | He was informed that there were already enough internists in his quadrant of the city to meet HealthcAoice member needs.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f_supp_864.jsonl#/f-supp/864/1175-01; Unicode character offsets [3400:3520] (end exclusive); SHA-256 06c1960d1dc678061d6eacfba6f9a02c11fb0fa2859d08dc7ca865e6700f0fb3.Plaintiff responded, “I haven’t sat down -with a pencil and paper and tried to figure it out. But I figured, "with what everyone else is telling me, I could have done 20 percent better.”Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f_supp_864.jsonl#/f-supp/864/1175-01; Unicode character offsets [26205:26391] (end exclusive); SHA-256 06c1960d1dc678061d6eacfba6f9a02c11fb0fa2859d08dc7ca865e6700f0fb3.Plaintiffs expectation is rooted in an assumption that his application would be accepted, and that he would serve on an equal footing with all other doctors on the closed panel.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f_supp_864.jsonl#/f-supp/864/1175-01; Unicode character offsets [26428:26605] (end exclusive); SHA-256 06c1960d1dc678061d6eacfba6f9a02c11fb0fa2859d08dc7ca865e6700f0fb3.He hopes to benefit from the Defendant’s allegedly anticompetitive conduct.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f_supp_864.jsonl#/f-supp/864/1175-01; Unicode character offsets [26772:26847] (end exclusive); SHA-256 06c1960d1dc678061d6eacfba6f9a02c11fb0fa2859d08dc7ca865e6700f0fb3.He merely hopes to profit from the allegedly anticompetitive conduct of others.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f_supp_864.jsonl#/f-supp/864/1175-01; Unicode character offsets [31032:31111] (end exclusive); SHA-256 06c1960d1dc678061d6eacfba6f9a02c11fb0fa2859d08dc7ca865e6700f0fb3. |
| Ford Motor Co. v. Webster's Auto Sales, Inc. — 361 F.2d 874 (1966) · United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · 1966 — satisfied · proved (15usc1: author: Fable · historical QA: PASS (QA2, neov2/qa/cases-QA2.md) · changed after review; current content not independently reviewed) | Private antitrust injury and fact of damage (Clayton Act §§ 4, 16; Brunswick Corp. v. Pueblo Bowl-O-Mat) | satisfied Counted merits instance applied / merits basis: proved Defendant's alternative causes (fewer cars offered, new bidders, changed bidding procedure) went to the jury; substantial-contribution causation suffices. | lost-supply-from-principal-supplier-joining-boycott | Several months after the first mailing of defendant’s letter, plaintiff’s purchases of factory Fords declined sharply.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f2d_361.jsonl#/f2d/361/0874-01; Unicode character offsets [5404:5522] (end exclusive); SHA-256 3e8e08a932e895de43a7032f3e31321a87a2b612988a02f8668089d2496e25d3.That Haar purchased 54 factory Fords in 1960 and sold 50 of them to plaintiff, but purchased only 14 in 1961 (and sold 5 to plaintiff), and 10 in 1962 (and sold 6 to plaintiff), was the direct result, plaintiff concludes, of that participation.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f2d_361.jsonl#/f2d/361/0874-01; Unicode character offsets [30037:30281] (end exclusive); SHA-256 3e8e08a932e895de43a7032f3e31321a87a2b612988a02f8668089d2496e25d3.In the calendar years 1959 and 1960 slightly over half of plaintiff’s gross profit was derived from resale of factory Fords obtained from Ford dealers.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f2d_361.jsonl#/f2d/361/0874-01; Unicode character offsets [938:1089] (end exclusive); SHA-256 3e8e08a932e895de43a7032f3e31321a87a2b612988a02f8668089d2496e25d3.a plaintiff in an antitrust suit is not barred merely because factors other than defendant’s unlawful conduct may have contributed to its injury.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f2d_361.jsonl#/f2d/361/0874-01; Unicode character offsets [32593:32738] (end exclusive); SHA-256 3e8e08a932e895de43a7032f3e31321a87a2b612988a02f8668089d2496e25d3.On the basis of this record the jury was justified in concluding that with reasonable probability there was a substantial causal connection between defendant’s unlawful acts and the decline in plaintiff’s purchases of factory Fords.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f2d_361.jsonl#/f2d/361/0874-01; Unicode character offsets [33085:33317] (end exclusive); SHA-256 3e8e08a932e895de43a7032f3e31321a87a2b612988a02f8668089d2496e25d3. |
| Harvey v. Fearless Farris Wholesale, Inc. — 589 F.2d 451 (1979) · United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1979 — not reached (15usc1: author: Fable · not independently reviewed) | Private antitrust injury and fact of damage (Clayton Act §§ 4, 16; Brunswick Corp. v. Pueblo Bowl-O-Mat) | not_reached Excluded from merits counts applied / merits | Unspecified route | No source quotation recorded for this block. |
| Systemcare, Inc. v. Wang Laboratories Corp. — 117 F.3d 1137 (1997) · United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 1997 — not reached (15usc1: author: Fable · not independently reviewed) | Private antitrust injury and fact of damage (Clayton Act §§ 4, 16; Brunswick Corp. v. Pueblo Bowl-O-Mat) | not_reached Excluded from merits counts rule-announced / merits | Unspecified route | No source quotation recorded for this block. |
| Tunica Web Advertising v. Tunica Casino Operators Ass'n — 496 F.3d 403 (2007) · United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 2007 — not reached (15usc1: author: Fable · QA: PASS (QA1, neov2/qa/cases-v1-QA1.md)) | Private antitrust injury and fact of damage (Clayton Act §§ 4, 16; Brunswick Corp. v. Pueblo Bowl-O-Mat) | not_reached Excluded from merits counts applied / meritsAntitrust-injury argument not reached below; defendants may reurge on remand. | Unspecified route | No source quotation recorded for this block. |
| IQ Dental Supply, Inc. v. Henry Schein, Inc. — 924 F.3d 57 (2019) · United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 2019 — satisfied · pleaded (15usc1: author: Flash1 · QA: FIX (Fable, neov2/cases/TRIAGE-Flash.md)) | Private antitrust injury and fact of damage (Clayton Act §§ 4, 16; Brunswick Corp. v. Pueblo Bowl-O-Mat) | satisfied Counted merits instance applied / merits basis: pleaded; party: IQ Dental Supply (small distributor selling through SourceOne's online portals, plaintiff) v. Henry Schein, Patterson and Benco (the three dominant dental-supply distributors); theory: group boycott engineered by the three distributors against SourceOne, the state dental associations and IQ (all boycott allegations together); subject: party=IQ Dental Supply (small distributor selling through SourceOne's online portals, plaintiff) v. Henry Schein, Patterson and Benco (the three dominant dental-supply distributors); theory=group boycott engineered by the three distributors against SourceOne, the state dental associations and IQ (all boycott allegations together) | replacement supplier that entered a market only because a boycott had driven out earlier suppliers, then lost sales to the same boycott | A plaintiff raising an antitrust claim must demonstrate antitrust injury to " 'ensure[ ] that the harm claimed by the plaintiff corresponds to the rationale for finding a violation of the antitrust laws in the first place.' " Gatt , 711 F.3d at 76 (quoting Atl. Richfield Co. v. USA Petroleum Co ., 495 U.S. 328, 342, 110 S.Ct. 1884, 109 L.Ed.2d 333 (1990) ).Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_924.jsonl#/f3d/924/0057-01; Unicode character offsets [7488:7847] (end exclusive); SHA-256 da542b913aaaaecc4dee585005c4c043a7ad5068aafddc4154b5213f1e68de8f.Assuming that IQ is operating in a market affected by anticompetitive conduct, the question of actual injury becomes whether IQ is worse off than it would be if the market were free of anticompetitive forces.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_924.jsonl#/f3d/924/0057-01; Unicode character offsets [13789:13997] (end exclusive); SHA-256 da542b913aaaaecc4dee585005c4c043a7ad5068aafddc4154b5213f1e68de8f.SourceOne's need for a distributor to supply its online portals opened the door for IQ.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_924.jsonl#/f3d/924/0057-01; Unicode character offsets [3871:3958] (end exclusive); SHA-256 da542b913aaaaecc4dee585005c4c043a7ad5068aafddc4154b5213f1e68de8f.Instead, IQ alleges that the Defendants' actions have decreased the number of sales it has been able to make through SourceOne-affiliated websites.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_924.jsonl#/f3d/924/0057-01; Unicode character offsets [12470:12617] (end exclusive); SHA-256 da542b913aaaaecc4dee585005c4c043a7ad5068aafddc4154b5213f1e68de8f.IQ has alleged that the Defendants' anticompetitive conduct affected the market, and that, after it entered the market, its sales through SourceOne suffered as a result.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_924.jsonl#/f3d/924/0057-01; Unicode character offsets [13998:14167] (end exclusive); SHA-256 da542b913aaaaecc4dee585005c4c043a7ad5068aafddc4154b5213f1e68de8f.IQ has adequately pleaded an antitrust injury in accordance with our decision in Gatt.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_924.jsonl#/f3d/924/0057-01; Unicode character offsets [8759:8845] (end exclusive); SHA-256 da542b913aaaaecc4dee585005c4c043a7ad5068aafddc4154b5213f1e68de8f. |
| Mucky Duck v. Directv, LLC (In re Nat'l Football League's Sunday Ticket Antitrust Litig.) — 933 F.3d 1136 (2019) · United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2019 — satisfied · pleaded (15usc1: author: Flash1 · QA: FIX (Fable, neov2/cases/TRIAGE-Flash.md)) | Private antitrust injury and fact of damage (Clayton Act §§ 4, 16; Brunswick Corp. v. Pueblo Bowl-O-Mat) | satisfied Counted merits instance applied / merits basis: pleaded; party: putative class of residential and commercial Sunday Ticket subscribers (plaintiffs) v. the NFL, its 32 teams and DirecTV; theory: interlocking agreements: the Teams-NFL Agreement pooling the teams' telecast rights and the NFL-DirecTV Agreement giving DirecTV exclusive distribution of out-of-market games; subject: party=putative class of residential and commercial Sunday Ticket subscribers (plaintiffs) v. the NFL, its 32 teams and DirecTV; theory=interlocking agreements: the Teams-NFL Agreement pooling the teams' telecast rights and the NFL-DirecTV Agreement giving DirecTV exclusive distribution of out-of-market games | subscribers paying higher prices for a bundled out-of-market package because output of telecasts is restricted | To plead the fourth element, antitrust standing or antitrust injury, plaintiffs must allege that they were harmed by the injury to competition.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_933.jsonl#/f3d/933/1136-01; Unicode character offsets [42374:42517] (end exclusive); SHA-256 42db1f4be612dc14ab467043a16aad8f736e97a31b6f073cfa1f940151d3b1e9.Fans who want to watch other out-of-market games cannot purchase games individually or by team, but are required to buy the entire package of NFL games.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_933.jsonl#/f3d/933/1136-01; Unicode character offsets [16211:16363] (end exclusive); SHA-256 42db1f4be612dc14ab467043a16aad8f736e97a31b6f073cfa1f940151d3b1e9.In 2015, the cost of a basic Sunday Ticket package was $251.94 annually for residential subscribers.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_933.jsonl#/f3d/933/1136-01; Unicode character offsets [16492:16592] (end exclusive); SHA-256 42db1f4be612dc14ab467043a16aad8f736e97a31b6f073cfa1f940151d3b1e9.This output limitation in turn results in prices for out-of-market games being higher than they would be in the absence of the conspiracy.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_933.jsonl#/f3d/933/1136-01; Unicode character offsets [45961:46099] (end exclusive); SHA-256 42db1f4be612dc14ab467043a16aad8f736e97a31b6f073cfa1f940151d3b1e9.Accordingly, we conclude that Illinois Brick is not applicable here because the complaint adequately alleges that DirecTV conspired with the NFL and the NFL Teams to limit the production of telecasts to one per game, and that plaintiffs suffered antitrust injury due to this conspiracy to limit output.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_933.jsonl#/f3d/933/1136-01; Unicode character offsets [50111:50413] (end exclusive); SHA-256 42db1f4be612dc14ab467043a16aad8f736e97a31b6f073cfa1f940151d3b1e9. |
| Texaco Inc. v. Dagher — 547 U.S. 1 (2006) · Supreme Court of the United States · 2006 — not reached (15usc1: author: Fable · historical QA: PASS (QA1, neov2/qa/cases-QA1.md) · changed after review; current content not independently reviewed) | Private antitrust injury and fact of damage (Clayton Act §§ 4, 16; Brunswick Corp. v. Pueblo Bowl-O-Mat) | not_reached Excluded from merits counts applied / merits | Unspecified route | No source quotation recorded for this block. |
| Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly — 550 U.S. 544 (2007) · Supreme Court of the United States · 2007 — not reached (15usc1: author: Fable · QA: PASS (QA1, neov2/qa/cases-v1-QA1.md)) | Private antitrust injury and fact of damage (Clayton Act §§ 4, 16; Brunswick Corp. v. Pueblo Bowl-O-Mat) | not_reached Excluded from merits counts applied / merits | Unspecified route | No source quotation recorded for this block. |
| Leegin Creative Leather Products, Inc. v. PSKS, Inc. — 551 U.S. 877 (2007) · Supreme Court of the United States · 2007 — not reached (15usc1: author: Fable · not independently reviewed) | Private antitrust injury and fact of damage (Clayton Act §§ 4, 16; Brunswick Corp. v. Pueblo Bowl-O-Mat) | not_reached Excluded from merits counts rule-announced / meritsJury awarded $1.2 million (trebled) for the terminated retailer; damages/injury not reviewed. | Unspecified route | No source quotation recorded for this block. |
| American Needle, Inc. v. National Football League — 560 U.S. 183 (2010) · Supreme Court of the United States · 2010 — not reached (15usc1: author: Fable · historical QA: PASS (QA1, neov2/qa/cases-v1-QA1.md) · changed after review; current content not independently reviewed) | Private antitrust injury and fact of damage (Clayton Act §§ 4, 16; Brunswick Corp. v. Pueblo Bowl-O-Mat) | not_reached Excluded from merits counts applied / merits | Unspecified route | No source quotation recorded for this block. |
Court interpretations
interpretation
To be a proper party, a plaintiff must have suffered an antitrust injury and must be an efficient enforcer of the antitrust laws.
Levine v. Central Florida Medical Affiliates, Inc. — 864 F. Supp. 1175 (1994) · United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida · 1994 (15usc1: author: Fable · not independently reviewed)
To be a proper party, a plaintiff must have suffered an antitrust injury and must be an efficient enforcer of the antitrust laws.Source:
docroot/ir/caselaw/f_supp_864.jsonl#/f-supp/864/1175-01; Unicode character offsets [4861:4990] (end exclusive); SHA-256 06c1960d1dc678061d6eacfba6f9a02c11fb0fa2859d08dc7ca865e6700f0fb3.Under Brunswick Corp. v. Pueblo Bowl-O-Mat, Inc. (429 U.S. 477, 489 (1977)), plaintiff must prove "antitrust injury, which is to say injury of the type the antitrust laws were intended to prevent and that flows from that which makes defendants' acts unlawful" — harm to competition, not merely harm to an individual competitor.
interpretation
a plaintiff in an antitrust suit is not barred merely because factors other than defendant’s unlawful conduct may have contributed to its injury.
Ford Motor Co. v. Webster's Auto Sales, Inc. — 361 F.2d 874 (1966) · United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · 1966 (15usc1: author: Fable · historical QA: PASS (QA2, neov2/qa/cases-QA2.md) · changed after review; current content not independently reviewed)
a plaintiff in an antitrust suit is not barred merely because factors other than defendant’s unlawful conduct may have contributed to its injury.Source:
docroot/ir/caselaw/f2d_361.jsonl#/f2d/361/0874-01; Unicode character offsets [32593:32738] (end exclusive); SHA-256 3e8e08a932e895de43a7032f3e31321a87a2b612988a02f8668089d2496e25d3.Under Brunswick Corp. v. Pueblo Bowl-O-Mat, Inc. (429 U.S. 477, 489 (1977)), plaintiff must prove "antitrust injury, which is to say injury of the type the antitrust laws were intended to prevent and that flows from that which makes defendants' acts unlawful" — harm to competition, not merely harm to an individual competitor.
not-required
Proof that the antitrust violation was the *sole* cause of the plaintiff's injury, so long as it was a material and substantial cause (Zenith Radio Corp. v. Hazeltine Research, Inc., 395 U.S. 100, 114 n.9 (1969); Ford v. Webster's Auto Sales)
No source quotation recorded.