CASE COMMENTS : FOREIGN CASE LAW - PRIVATE ENFORCEMENT – MONOPOLIZATION – PASSING ON DEFENCE – CLASS ACTION - ALL BUSINESS SECTORS

Private enforcement - Class action : The Northern California District Court holds that mobile applications users are indirect purchasers and lack standing to bring antitrust suit (Apple iPhone)

*This article is an automatic translation of the original article, provided here for your convenience. Read the original article. For almost forty years, the "indirect purchaser" rule has been a formidable filter for plaintiffs seeking compensation for damage suffered in the event of an anti-competitive practice. The rule was clarified by the Supreme Court in 1977 in its famous Illinois Brick decision and indicates that only direct purchasers of a product that has been the subject of a cartel or monopolization can act to obtain damages (Illinois Brick Co.v. Illinois, 431 U.S. 720, 1977). A December 2, 2013, decision of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California further illustrates how difficult it is for plaintiffs who do not fall within the strict framework of

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

Quotation

Jean-Christophe Roda, Private enforcement - Class action : The Northern California District Court holds that mobile applications users are indirect purchasers and lack standing to bring antitrust suit (Apple iPhone), 2 December 2013, Concurrences N° 1-2014, Art. N° 63515, pp. 233-234

Visites 277

All reviews