Indirect Purchaser Suits and Jurisdictional Competition

Global Competition Review, December 2013

William & Mary Law School Research Paper No. 09-269

10 Pages Posted: 24 Jan 2014 Last revised: 12 Mar 2014

Date Written: 2013

Abstract

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.”

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

Suggested Citation

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

James Stern (Contact Author)

William & Mary Law School ( email )

613 S. Henry Street
Williamsburg, VA 23185
United States
757-221-1341 (Phone)

HOME PAGE: http://jamesystern.wordpress.com/

Register to save articles to
your library

Register

Paper statistics

Downloads
49
Abstract Views
597
PlumX Metrics