Opinion ID: 1740082
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: Test to Determine Antitrust Standing.

Text: Although lower courts had unanimously rejected claims for remote injuries prior to Iowa's adoption of its antitrust law in 1976, the United States Supreme Court did not directly address this issue until its 1983 decision in Associated General Contractors. In that case, the Court noted the federal antitrust statute was broad enough to encompass every harm that can be attributed directly or indirectly to the consequences of an antitrust violation, but concluded Congress intended the Act to be construed in the light of its common-law background. Associated Gen. Contractors, 459 U.S. at 529, 531, 103 S.Ct. at 904-05, 74 L.Ed.2d at 733. This common-law background encompassed constraints on who could recover, including limitations on recovery for remote injuries. Id. at 532 n. 25, 103 S.Ct. at 905 n. 25, 74 L.Ed.2d at 734-35 n. 25. In determining who could recover under the federal act, i.e., who has antitrust standing, the Court focused on the plaintiff's harm, the alleged wrongdoing by the defendants, and the relationship between them. Id. at 535, 103 S.Ct. at 907, 74 L.Ed.2d at 736. The plaintiffs urge us to reject the Associated General Contractors ( AGC ) test and employ the target area test to analyze standing. Under the latter test, a plaintiff must simply be in the target area of the antitrust conspiracy, that is, the area of the economy which is endangered by a breakdown of competitive conditions in a particular industry. Id. at 537 n. 33, 103 S.Ct. at 908 n. 33, 74 L.Ed.2d at 737 n. 33. The United States Supreme Court rejected this test in Associated General Contractors, instructing courts to consider the multiple factors set forth in that decision. Id. Moreover, contrary to the plaintiffs' claim the target area test is more widely accepted, it appears federal and state courts have uniformly applied the AGC test. The target area test, which is in essence an analysis of foreseeability, is inconsistent with Iowa's common-law limitation on recovery for remote injuries, which is not based on the foreseeability of the plaintiff's damages. See Philip Morris Inc., 577 N.W.2d at 406 (The remoteness doctrine `is not based upon a factual inquiry to determine whether the damages claimed were foreseeable. . . .' (quoting Kraft Chem. Co., 181 Ill.Dec. 170, 608 N.E.2d at 245)). We think the AGC test is more reflective of the legal context within which the Iowa legislature enacted Iowa's competition law. Therefore, we apply the AGC factors to determine whether the plaintiffs may recover under Iowa law.