Brunswick Corp. v. Pueblo Bowl-O-Mat, Inc.
429 U.S. 477 (1977)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
To recover treble damages under Section 4 of the Clayton Act, a private plaintiff must prove an 'antitrust injury,' which is an injury of the type the antitrust laws were intended to prevent and that flows from that which makes the defendant's acts unlawful.
Facts:
- Brunswick Corp., a major manufacturer of bowling equipment, sold much of its product on credit during a market boom in the late 1950s.
- In the early 1960s, the bowling industry declined sharply, causing many bowling centers to default on their payments to Brunswick.
- To mitigate substantial financial losses, Brunswick began acquiring and operating the defaulting bowling centers when it could not resell the repossessed equipment.
- This practice made Brunswick the largest operator of bowling centers in the United States, although it controlled only 2% of the market.
- Treadway Companies, Inc. owned several bowling centers, including Pueblo Bowl-O-Mat, that competed in the same local markets as some of the failing centers Brunswick acquired.
- Treadway claimed that if Brunswick had not acquired the failing centers, those centers would have gone out of business.
- Treadway argued that the closure of these competitors would have resulted in increased market concentration, allowing Treadway to capture more business and earn higher profits.
Procedural Posture:
- Respondents (three bowling centers) sued petitioner (Brunswick Corp.) in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey, alleging violations of Section 7 of the Clayton Act.
- Following a mistrial, a jury returned a verdict for the respondents on the Section 7 claim and awarded damages of $2,358,030, which the District Court trebled as required by law.
- The District Court also granted equitable relief, ordering Brunswick to divest itself of the acquired bowling centers.
- Brunswick, the defendant-appellant, appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit.
- The Court of Appeals affirmed the legal theory that respondents were entitled to damages for lost profits but reversed the judgment and remanded for a new trial because of improper jury instructions, also vacating the divestiture order.
- Brunswick petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court for a writ of certiorari to review the validity of the damages theory, which the Court granted.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does the loss of anticipated profits that would have been realized if acquired competitors had failed constitute 'antitrust injury' for which a private plaintiff may recover treble damages under Section 4 of the Clayton Act?
Opinions:
Majority - Mr. Justice Marshall
No. For a plaintiff to recover treble damages for a violation of Section 7 of the Clayton Act, they must prove more than an injury causally linked to an illegal market presence; they must prove an 'antitrust injury.' The purpose of the antitrust laws is to protect competition, not to insulate individual competitors from it. Here, the respondents' claimed injury—the loss of profits they would have gained had competitors gone bankrupt—stems from the preservation of competition, not its reduction. This is not the type of injury the antitrust laws were designed to prevent. The alleged illegality of Brunswick's acquisitions was its 'deep pocket' status entering a market of 'pygmies,' but the respondents' injury bears no relation to this factor; they would have suffered the same loss if a 'shallow pocket' company had acquired the centers. Therefore, to award damages for profits lost due to continued competition would be inimical to the very purpose of the antitrust laws.
Analysis:
This landmark decision established the essential 'antitrust injury' doctrine, which has become a fundamental requirement for standing in private antitrust litigation. It clarifies that a mere causal link between a defendant's antitrust violation and a plaintiff's financial loss is insufficient for recovery. The doctrine prevents plaintiffs from using the antitrust laws to recover for harms that do not stem from the anti-competitive nature of the defendant's conduct, thereby filtering out claims that complain of legitimate competition. This holding significantly shapes modern antitrust enforcement by ensuring that private damages actions align with the public policy goal of protecting the competitive process itself, rather than simply protecting individual businesses from market forces.
Unlock the full brief for Brunswick Corp. v. Pueblo Bowl-O-Mat, Inc.