Indirect Purchaser Suits and Jurisdictional Competition

James Y. Stern

William & Mary Law School


Global Competition Review, December 2013
William & Mary Law School Research Paper No. 09-269

This short commentary for the Global Competition Review looks at conflict-of-laws questions concerning the availability of “indirect purchaser” suits under state antitrust laws. Using “comparative impairment” analysis, recent decisions have drawn implausible distinctions between seemingly identical cases on the basis of suppositions about how strongly attached different states are to their respective laws. A better approach would be to mold conflict-of-laws rules to enhance parties’ jurisdictional choice. Comparative impairment was the brainchild of antitrust giant William Baxter, and it seems an appropriate context to consider the effect different conflicts rules will have on the “market for law.”

Number of Pages in PDF File: 10

Keywords: conflict of laws, choice of law, antitrust, indirect purchaser suits, parens patriae; antitrust standing, comparative impairment, law market, Illinois Brick, horizontal federalism, jurisdictional competition

Accepted Paper Series

Download This Paper

Date posted: January 24, 2014 ; Last revised: March 12, 2014

Suggested Citation

Stern, James Y., Indirect Purchaser Suits and Jurisdictional Competition (2013). Global Competition Review, December 2013; William & Mary Law School Research Paper No. 09-269. Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=2383490

Contact Information

James Y. Stern (Contact Author)
William & Mary Law School ( email )
613 S. Henry Street
P.O. Box 8795
Williamsburg, VA (757) 221-1341 23187-8795
United States
757-221-1341 (Phone)
HOME PAGE: http://law2.wm.edu/faculty/bios/fulltime/jystern.php?svr=law
Feedback to SSRN

Paper statistics
Abstract Views: 241
Downloads: 24

© 2014 Social Science Electronic Publishing, Inc. All Rights Reserved.  FAQ   Terms of Use   Privacy Policy   Copyright   Contact Us
This page was processed by apollo1 in 0.250 seconds