Opinion ID: 1929672
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 10

Heading: APPLICATION OF ANTITRUST STANDING PRINCIPLES IS CONSISTENT WITH ARTHUR v. MICROSOFT CORP

Text: Appellants also argue that applying the antitrust standing principles identified in Associated General Contractors would be inconsistent with the decision in Arthur to allow indirect purchaser suits. Specifically, appellants assert that the wholesale adoption of the [Associated General Contractors] five-factor test by Nebraska courts would make meaningless the broad grant of standing to ordinary consumers . . . upheld . . . in Arthur. Brief for appellants at 17. The antitrust standing factors articulated in Associated General Contractors v. Carpenters, 459 U.S. 519, 103 S.Ct. 897, 74 L.Ed.2d 723 (1983), however, can accommodate the approval of indirect purchaser actions in Arthur and the 2002 amendment to the Junkin Act. The Seventh Circuit rejected state antitrust law claims on standing grounds, despite the state's rejection of the Illinois Brick Co. bar. For example, in International Broth. of Teamsters v. Philip Morris, 196 F.3d 818 (7th Cir.1999), the court noted that Illinois does not follow the Illinois Brick Co. doctrine. The Seventh Circuit nevertheless affirmed the dismissal of Illinois' antitrust law claims for lack of antitrust standing, reasoning that the Illinois Brick Co. doctrine is only one of several obstacles to [plaintiffs'] recovery on an antitrust claim. The direct-purchaser doctrine of Illinois Brick [ Co. ] and the direct-injury doctrine of Associated General Contractors are analytically distinct. International Broth. of Teamsters v. Philip Morris, 196 F.3d at 828.