The US Supreme Court affirms the necessity of pleading elements in private antitrust conspiracy claims (Bell Atlantic / Twombly)

Pleading Consumer Antitrust Claims* The U.S. has long followed a system of private enforcement of law meant to redress public harm. In the law of antitrust, from the very beginning U.S. law provided a claim to plaintiffs who could show harm flowing from the violation. [1] Convincing private plaintiffs to sue requires an incentive, in particular because the harms from antitrust violations frequently will be small and diffuse. The favored approach in U.S. antitrust has been some combination of bounty – damages above and beyond what is required to remedy the harm – and coverage of attorney fees. [2]In the eyes of many, consumer antitrust claims are over-incented. [3] Reviewing anecdotal evidence of the trends in class action litigation raising commercial tort claims, including antitrust,

Access to this article is restricted to subscribers

Already Subscribed? Sign-in

Access to this article is restricted to subscribers.

Read one article for free

Sign-up to read this article for free and discover our services.

 

PDF Version

Author

  • University of Indiana - Maurer School of Law (Indianapolis)

Quotation

Max Huffman, The US Supreme Court affirms the necessity of pleading elements in private antitrust conspiracy claims (Bell Atlantic / Twombly), 21 May 2007, e-Competitions Bulletin US Private Enforcement, Art. N° 47313

Visites 334

All issues

  • Latest News issue 
  • All News issues
  • Latest Special issue 
  • All Special issues