CASE COMMENTS : UNITED STATES – PRIVATE ENFORCEMENT - COMBINATION - BANKING SECTOR - INDIRECT PURCHASER

USA: The ninth Circuit holds that ATM users lack standing to challenge bank ATM fees (ATM Fee Antitrust Litigation)

*This article is an automatic translation of the original article, provided here for your convenience. Read the original article. Under (or because of) well-established case law, plaintiffs under U.S. competition law are deprived of the opportunity to obtain relief when they are indirect victims of an anticompetitive practice. This is the result of the application of the so-called "indirect purchaser doctrine", elaborated by the Supreme Court in 1977 in its famous Illinois Brick decision, according to which 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). The criticisms and justifications surrounding this jurisprudence are well known and reference should be made

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, USA: The ninth Circuit holds that ATM users lack standing to challenge bank ATM fees (ATM Fee Antitrust Litigation), 12 July 2012, Concurrences N° 4-2012, Art. N° 49610, pp. 189-190

Visites 175

All reviews