Injury-In-Fact
In antitrust class actions, litigation over a plaintiff's standing under Article III of the U.S. Constitution creates an inflection point that may lead to the disposal of certain, or all, claims.
Introduction
To litigate an individual antitrust suit (or any other suit), Article III of the U.S. Constitution requires that the named plaintiff have standing, i.e., some proof that she was injured by the defendant's allegedly anticompetitive conduct, and her injury would be redressed if she proves her case on the merits. But when a named plaintiff files a class action rather than an individual suit, many courts disagree about how to apply Article III's "case or controversy" requirement. In a four-part series published by Law360, White & Case partner Michael Hamburger and senior associate Holly Tao discuss four common standing issues that can give defendants an edge when litigating against class-action plaintiffs, including by (1) challenging whether the named plaintiffs have sufficient proof of injury; (2) contesting the named plaintiffs' ability to bring claims under the laws of states where they were not injured; (3) ensuring that standing issues are addressed at the appropriate stage in the case; and (4) avoiding certification of any class by showing that enough proposed class members likely suffered no injury.
Rule 23
Most recent antitrust class actions are brought by a small number of named plaintiffs, who allege that a vast conspiracy or monopolistic scheme raised the prices of a given product bought by indirect purchasers across the country.
Timing
Antitrust class actions are often sprawling litigations, so the early resolution of Article III standing disputes can result in sizable efficiencies for parties and courts.
The Uninjured
In virtually every antitrust class action, at the class certification phase the parties disagree about whether the proposed class includes uninjured members.
