Summary
The Supreme Court held that private plaintiffs seeking treble damages for a violation of § 7 of the Clayton Act must prove antitrust injury, meaning injury of the type the antitrust laws were intended to prevent and that flows from the unlawful conduct. The respondents' claimed loss of profits from competition allegedly preserved by Brunswick was not antitrust injury. The Court vacated the Court of Appeals' judgment and remanded, while directing judgment for Brunswick on the damages claim.
Holdings
- A plaintiff seeking treble damages for a § 7 Clayton Act violation must prove antitrust injury: injury of the type the antitrust laws were intended to prevent and that flows from the conduct making the defendant's acts unlawful. Mere injury causally linked to an illegal presence in the market is insufficient.
- Respondents were not entitled to damages because their entire proof rested on the rejected theory that they could recover profits that would have resulted if the acquired bowling centers had closed, and they did not prove cognizable antitrust damages from predatory or other anticompetitive conduct.
- Respondents remained free on remand to seek an injunction against practices by which a deep-pocket market entrant harms competition because Brunswick did not contest the Court of Appeals' holding that such equitable relief might be available upon proof of a § 7 violation.
Questions Presented
- Whether a private plaintiff may recover treble damages under § 4 of the Clayton Act for losses allegedly caused by a § 7 acquisition when the claimed loss consists of profits that would have resulted from the acquired businesses' failure and disappearance from the market.
- What disposition is appropriate where the plaintiffs' entire damages case rests on a legally insufficient theory of antitrust injury.
- Whether respondents remained free on remand to seek equitable relief against practices by which a deep-pocket market entrant harms competition.
Disposition
vacated
Cases Cited (17)
- United States v. E. I. du Pont de Nemours & Co., 353 U.S. 586, 597 (1957)(followed)
- Brown Shoe Co. v. United States, 370 U.S. 294, 317-318, 320 (1962)(followed)
- United States v. Philadelphia National Bank, 374 U.S. 321, 362-363 (1963)(followed)
- United States v. Penn-Olin Chemical Co., 378 U.S. 158, 170-171 (1964)(followed)
- United States v. Von's Grocery Co., 384 U.S. 270, 277 (1966)(followed)
- FTC v. Procter & Gamble Co., 386 U.S. 568, 577-578 (1967)(followed)
- Gulf Oil Corp. v. Copp Paving Co., 419 U.S. 186, 201 (1974)(followed)
- Perma Life Mufflers v. International Parts Corp., 392 U.S. 134, 139 (1968)(followed)
- Fortner Enterprises v. United States Steel Corp., 394 U.S. 495, 502 (1969)(followed)
- Zenith Radio Corp. v. Hazeltine Research, 395 U.S. 100, 125, 130 (1969)(followed)
Showing top 10 of 17.
Cited In (0)
No citing cases on record yet.
Court Document
Open PDFLoading document…