102 Iowa L. Rev. 2291 (2017)

Download PDF

Abstract

A private plaintiff’s ability to enforce antitrust violations critically hinges upon proof that the plaintiff’s injury was in fact caused by the defendant’s antitrust violation—a deceptively simple requirement. This Note traces the history of the treatment of the causation element in private Section 1 antitrust conspiracy claims, as well as the differing approaches courts apply to the causation element when ruling on motions for summary judgment in Section 1 cases. In particular, this Note elaborates on how the adoption and use of the traditional tort law concept of causation in antitrust, as well as the heightened standards found in unrelated antitrust inquiries, has rendered federal courts incapable of properly examining economic evidence of causation. This Note advocates for more procedurally prudent court practices when assessing the causation element in pretrial rulings. Such practices are intended to hold courts accountable for verifying that a Section 1 plaintiff has sound evidence of causation before a case reaches a jury, while also ensuring that courts do not go beyond their role as gatekeepers when ruling on motions for summary judgment.