Reasoning that any form of price fixing contravenes Congress' intent that market forces alone determine what goods and services are offered, their prices, and whether particular sellers succeed or fail, the court concluded that USA had shown that its losses resulted from a disruption in the market caused by ARCO's price fixing. Injury, although causally related to an antitrust violation, will not qualify unless it is attributable to an anticompetitive aspect of the practice under scrutiny, since it is inimical to the antitrust laws to award damages for losses stemming from continued competition. USA was benefited rather than harmed if ARCO's pricing policies restricted ARCO's sales to a few large dealers or prevented its dealers from offering services desired by consumers. Although under 1 the price agreement itself is illegal, all losses flowing from the agreement are not by definition antitrust injuries.
Low prices benefit consumers regardless of how they are set.
So long as they are above predatory levels, they do not threaten competition and, hence, cannot give rise to antitrust injury. A loss flowing from a per se violation of 1 does not automatically satisfy the antitrust injury requirement, which is a distinct matter that must be shown independently. The purpose of per se analysis is to determine whether a particular restraint is unreasonable. Actions per se unlawful may nonetheless have some procompetitive effects, and private parties might suffer losses therefrom. The antitrust injury requirement, however, ensures that a plaintiff can recover only if the loss stems from a competition-reducing aspect or effect of the defendant's behavior.