Opinion ID: 820495
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Indirect injury

Text: Gatt’s purported injuries are at best an indirect result of the primary asserted antitrust violation: price-fixing through bid-rigging, as perpetuated by 17 termination of the Dealer Agreement. “Directness in the antitrust context means close in the chain of causation.” International Bus. Machs. Corp. v. Platform Solutions, Inc., 658 F. Supp. 2d 603, 611 (S.D.N.Y. 2009) (internal quotation marks omitted); see also Associated General Contractors, 459 U.S. at 540-41. Although defendants’ alleged conduct may have harmed Gatt by denying Gatt commissions it might otherwise have earned had its Dealer Agreement remained in force, the amount and number of those lost commissions are far more remote and conjectural than the losses suffered by the government agencies. Gatt was only incidentally harmed by the conspiracy, as noted above. It did not pay higher prices by virtue of the conspiracy; it merely lost the right to sell one brand of radio. If there are direct victims of the alleged conspiracy, they are the state agencies, not Gatt.