'Speculative' Antitrust Damages

Washington Law Review, Vol. 70, p. 423, 1995

42 Pages Posted: 28 May 2009

See all articles by Roger D. Blair

Roger D. Blair

University of Florida - Warrington College of Business Administration - Department of Economics

William H. Page

University of Florida - Levin College of Law

Date Written: May 27, 2009

Abstract

This article, published in 1995, describes antitrust law’s framework for proving individual harm as the basis for an award of treble damages. Antitrust damages are based on a standard of net individual harm, adapted (by the antitrust injury and Illinois Brick doctrines) to conform to a larger principle of net social harm. Net individual harm, so qualified, is measured by the difference between the plaintiff’s actual condition and its “but-for condition,” that is, the condition the plaintiff would have been in but for the defendants’ anticompetitive conduct. The plaintiff must project its but-for condition from a reasonably comparable base experience. In doing so, it must offer a theoretical model and an evidentiary foundation sufficient to isolate the defendant’s illegal conduct as the cause of the difference between the actual and but-for conditions.

Suggested Citation

Blair, Roger D. and Page, William Hepburn, 'Speculative' Antitrust Damages (May 27, 2009). Washington Law Review, Vol. 70, p. 423, 1995. Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=1410767

Roger D. Blair

University of Florida - Warrington College of Business Administration - Department of Economics ( email )

342 Matherly Hall
Gainesville, FL 32611-7140
United States
352-392-0179 (Phone)
352-392-7860 (Fax)

William Hepburn Page (Contact Author)

University of Florida - Levin College of Law ( email )

P.O. Box 117625
Gainesville, FL 32611-7625
United States

Register to save articles to
your library

Register

Paper statistics

Downloads
180
Abstract Views
919
rank
170,768
PlumX Metrics