104 Iowa L. Rev. 957 (2019)

Download PDF

Abstract

This Note explores how the Eighth Circuit and other circuits have recently expanded the liability of antitrust defendants significantly by holding that plaintiffs do not need to allege that a conspiracy was ongoing during the four-year statute of limitation period to restart the statute. These decisions undermine both the federal antitrust regime’s goal of proactive private enforcement and the repose and efficiency interests underlying statutes of limitations. This Note argues that these decisions improperly rely on the Supreme Court’s RICO precedent and contradict the Court’s pleading standard precedent. This Note proposes legislative solutions to this problem in the form of clarification to the “accrual” language in the statutory regime and through the enactment of a statute of repose. Either solution would provide clarity to defendants as to the limits of their liability and encourage plaintiffs to promptly bring their claims.