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,

L'accès à cet article est réservé aux abonnés

Déjà abonné ? Identifiez-vous

L’accès à cet article est réservé aux abonnés.

Lire gratuitement un article

Vous pouvez lire cet article gratuitement en vous inscrivant.

 

Version PDF

Auteur

  • University of Indiana

Citation

Max Huffman, The US Supreme Court affirms the necessity of pleading elements in private antitrust conspiracy claims (Bell Atlantic / Twombly), 21 mai 2007, e-Competitions Due Process Research Program, Art. N° 47313

Visites 424

Tous les numéros

  • Latest News issue 
  • Tous les News issues
  • Latest Special issue 
  • Tous les Special issues