Arthur v. Microsoft Corp., 267 Neb. 586

Summary

The Supreme Court of Nebraska held that indirect purchasers may bring a civil action under Nebraska's Consumer Protection Act when alleged monopolistic conduct directly or indirectly affects Nebraska consumers. The court reversed the dismissal of the plaintiffs' antitrust claim and remanded for further proceedings. It affirmed dismissal of the claim under Nebraska U.C.C. § 2-302, concluding that the unconscionability provision does not provide a basis for money damages.

Holdings

1. Neb. Rev. Stat. § 59-1609 permits an indirect purchaser to bring a civil action for damages for a violation of the Act when the alleged violation directly or indirectly affects the people of Nebraska.
2. The amended petition sufficiently alleged that Microsoft's practices affected the people of Nebraska, so the antitrust claim could not be dismissed on demurrer.
3. Neb. U.C.C. § 2-302 does not create an affirmative cause of action or provide a basis for an award of money damages; the plaintiffs' damages claim under that provision was properly dismissed.

Questions Presented

1. Whether Nebraska's Consumer Protection Act permits indirect purchasers to bring a private action for damages arising from alleged monopolistic conduct.
2. Whether the Nebraska harmonization statute requires Nebraska courts to apply the federal indirect-purchaser rule from Illinois Brick Co. v. Illinois.
3. Whether Neb. U.C.C. § 2-302 creates a basis for an affirmative claim for money damages based on alleged unconscionability.

Disposition

reversed_and_remanded