F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd. v. Empagran S.A.
159 L. Ed. 2d 226, 124 S. Ct. 2359 (2004)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The Foreign Trade Antitrust Improvements Act (FTAIA) does not allow a foreign plaintiff injured in a foreign market to bring a Sherman Act claim in U.S. court, even if the defendant's anticompetitive conduct also caused domestic harm, unless the plaintiff's foreign injury was proximately caused by the anticompetitive effect on U.S. domestic commerce.
Facts:
- Foreign and domestic vitamin manufacturers and distributors, including F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd. (petitioners), engaged in a global price-fixing conspiracy.
- This conspiracy caused the price of vitamins to increase for customers within the United States.
- The conspiracy also independently caused the price of vitamins to increase for customers in foreign countries.
- Empagran S.A. and other respondents are foreign companies located in countries such as Ecuador, Australia, Ukraine, and Panama.
- Respondents purchased vitamins from the petitioners for delivery and use entirely outside the United States.
- The financial injury suffered by respondents (paying artificially high prices) occurred in foreign markets and was a direct result of the global conspiracy's effect on those markets.
- The injury to the foreign respondents was independent of the injury suffered by purchasers in the United States.
Procedural Posture:
- Foreign and domestic purchasers filed a class-action lawsuit against petitioners in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia under the Sherman Act.
- Petitioners filed a motion to dismiss the claims brought by the foreign purchasers (respondents).
- The District Court (court of first instance) granted the motion to dismiss, holding that the FTAIA barred the foreign plaintiffs' claims.
- The foreign purchasers (appellants) appealed the dismissal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit.
- A divided panel of the Court of Appeals (intermediate appellate court) reversed the District Court, holding that the FTAIA's domestic injury exception permitted the lawsuit to proceed because the conspiracy had a domestic effect, even if the plaintiffs' injuries were foreign and independent.
- The U.S. Supreme Court granted petitioners' writ of certiorari.
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 Foreign Trade Antitrust Improvements Act's (FTAIA) domestic injury exception allow a foreign plaintiff to sue in U.S. court under the Sherman Act for an injury sustained in a foreign transaction when the defendant's anticompetitive conduct also caused a domestic injury, but the plaintiff's foreign injury is independent of that domestic injury?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Breyer
No. The domestic injury exception to the FTAIA does not apply where the plaintiff’s claim rests solely on independent foreign harm. To bring a Sherman Act claim, a foreign plaintiff must show that the anticompetitive effect on U.S. commerce was the proximate cause of their foreign injury. The Court's reasoning is based on two primary considerations. First, principles of prescriptive comity counsel against interpreting U.S. statutes in a way that unreasonably interferes with the sovereign authority and legal regimes of other nations. Applying U.S. law, particularly its treble-damages remedy, to redress purely foreign injuries would supplant foreign nations' own antitrust enforcement policies. Second, the FTAIA's language and legislative history indicate it was meant to clarify or limit, not expand, the Sherman Act's extraterritorial reach. There was no significant pre-1982 case law supporting the application of the Sherman Act to private claims based on independent foreign injury. The statutory language that the domestic effect must "give rise to a claim" should be read to mean the plaintiff's own claim, not just any theoretical claim that could be brought by a domestically-injured party.
Concurring - Justice Scalia
Yes, I concur in the judgment. The majority's interpretation of the statute is a reasonable reading of its language. More importantly, this interpretation is the only one consistent with the established principle of statutory construction that U.S. laws should be read to accord with the customary deference to the application of foreign countries' laws within their own territories.
Analysis:
This decision significantly curtails the extraterritorial application of U.S. antitrust laws to private foreign plaintiffs. It establishes that a mere causal link to a global conspiracy that also affects the U.S. is insufficient; the plaintiff's injury must proximately flow from the harm to U.S. commerce itself. This reinforces principles of international comity by preventing U.S. courts from becoming a venue for purely foreign disputes, thereby respecting the antitrust regulatory and remedial schemes of other nations. The ruling forces foreign plaintiffs injured abroad to seek redress in their own legal systems unless they can meet the high bar of demonstrating their injury is not independent of the U.S. market effects.
