Illinois Brick v. Illinois
431 U.S. 720 (1977)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Only direct purchasers have standing to sue for treble damages under Section 4 of the Clayton Act for an illegal overcharge. The pass-on theory, which argues that an overcharge was passed down through a distribution chain, cannot be used offensively by indirect purchasers to establish injury.
Facts:
- Petitioners, including Illinois Brick Co., manufactured and distributed concrete blocks in the Greater Chicago area.
- Petitioners sold these concrete blocks primarily to masonry contractors.
- The masonry contractors used the blocks to construct masonry portions of building projects for general contractors.
- The general contractors then incorporated these masonry structures into entire buildings.
- These completed buildings were sold to respondents, the State of Illinois and 700 local governmental entities, making them indirect purchasers of the concrete blocks.
Procedural Posture:
- The State of Illinois and 700 local governmental entities sued Illinois Brick Co. and other concrete block manufacturers in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois.
- The complaint sought treble damages under § 4 of the Clayton Act, alleging a price-fixing conspiracy in violation of the Sherman Act.
- The defendant manufacturers moved for partial summary judgment against the plaintiffs who were indirect purchasers of the concrete block.
- The District Court granted the defendants' motion, ruling as a matter of law that only direct purchasers could sue for the alleged overcharge.
- The plaintiffs (as appellants) appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit.
- The Court of Appeals reversed the District Court's decision, holding that indirect purchasers can recover damages if they prove the overcharge was passed on to them.
- The U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari to resolve a conflict among the Courts of Appeals on this issue.
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 Section 4 of the Clayton Act permit an indirect purchaser to bring an antitrust treble-damages action against an alleged price-fixer by using a 'pass-on' theory to show that the illegal overcharge was passed on to it through the chain of distribution?
Opinions:
Majority - Mr. Justice White
No. Section 4 of the Clayton Act does not permit an indirect purchaser to bring a treble-damages action against an alleged violator based on a pass-on theory. The Court's prior holding in Hanover Shoe, Inc. v. United Shoe Machinery Corp., which barred the defensive use of a pass-on theory by defendants, must be applied symmetrically to bar its offensive use by plaintiffs. First, allowing offensive but not defensive use would create an unacceptable risk of multiple liability, where both direct and indirect purchasers could recover for the same overcharge. Second, the primary rationale of Hanover Shoe—that tracing the economic complexities of a passed-on overcharge would make antitrust litigation unmanageably burdensome and inefficient—applies with equal or greater force to claims brought by indirect purchasers. The Court concluded that antitrust laws are more effectively enforced by concentrating the full recovery in the direct purchaser, who has a greater incentive to sue, rather than diffusing it among many parties in the distribution chain.
Dissenting - Mr. Justice Brennan
Yes. Section 4 of the Clayton Act should be interpreted to allow indirect purchasers to sue for damages that were passed on to them. The majority's decision frustrates the core congressional objectives of compensating victims and deterring antitrust violators, as the brunt of the injury is often borne by indirect purchasers and ultimate consumers. The policy rationale of Hanover Shoe was to prevent violators from escaping liability, but the majority's symmetrical application here shields violators from liability to those who were actually injured. The difficulty in proving pass-on damages is not an insurmountable barrier and should not preclude plaintiffs from the opportunity to make their case. Furthermore, recent congressional action in the Hart-Scott-Rodino Antitrust Improvements Act of 1976 indicates a clear legislative intent to provide a remedy for consumers, regardless of their position in the distribution chain.
Dissenting - Mr. Justice Blackmun
Yes. The majority's holding is a 'wooden approach' driven by a mechanical need for consistency with Hanover Shoe, rather than the underlying policy of the antitrust laws. If Hanover Shoe had not been decided first, the Court would almost certainly have affirmed the right of indirect purchasers to sue, as this aligns with the objectives of the Sherman and Clayton Acts. The Court's decision is the result of an 'unhappy chronology' that forces it to ignore the obvious congressional aim of protecting injured consumers.
Analysis:
This landmark decision establishes the 'Illinois Brick doctrine,' or the 'direct purchaser rule,' which significantly limits the class of plaintiffs who can sue for damages under federal antitrust law. By concentrating the right to sue in direct purchasers, the Court prioritized litigation efficiency and the avoidance of multiple liability over the goal of compensating all parties who may have been financially harmed. The ruling created a substantial barrier for consumers and other end-users seeking relief for price-fixing. In response to this decision, many states enacted 'Illinois Brick repealer' statutes, which explicitly authorize indirect purchasers to sue for damages under their respective state antitrust laws.
