Antitrust Litigation

Antitrust law is a body of federal and state regulations designed to promote fair competition and prevent monopolistic practices that harm consumers and businesses. The primary federal statutes include the Sherman Act, which prohibits agreements that unreasonably restrain trade and monopolization; the Clayton Act, which addresses mergers and acquisitions that may substantially lessen competition; and the Federal Trade Commission Act, which bans unfair methods of competition. Massachusetts also has its own antitrust laws, including Chapter 93 and the Consumer Protection Act (Chapter 93A), which often provide stronger protections than federal law. These laws collectively protect against price-fixing, bid-rigging, market allocation, monopolization, and other anti-competitive practices that artificially inflate prices, limit consumer choice, or exclude competitors from markets. When companies violate these laws, affected consumers and businesses can seek compensation for overcharges, lost profits, and other economic harm through antitrust litigation, while also helping to restore competitive balance to the marketplace.

Price-fixing occurs when competitors agree to set prices, rather than allowing prices to be determined by free-market forces. This can take various forms, including direct agreements on specific prices, agreements to follow a pricing formula, coordinated price increases, or even agreements to set minimum or maximum prices. Price-fixing schemes may also involve market allocation (dividing territories or customers), bid-rigging (coordinating bids for contracts), or supply restrictions to artificially drive up prices. In Massachusetts, affected parties can pursue remedies through both federal and state laws. The federal Sherman Act prohibits price-fixing as a per se violation, meaning no defense or justification is accepted. Massachusetts Chapter 93 and the Consumer Protection Act (Chapter 93A) provide additional remedies, with Chapter 93A particularly powerful as it allows for double or treble damages for willful violations. Massachusetts consumers or businesses harmed by price-fixing can file private lawsuits either individually or as part of a class action. To succeed, plaintiffs typically need to demonstrate the existence of an agreement among competitors and that they suffered financial harm as a result. Economic experts often play a crucial role in these cases, helping to quantify damages by comparing actual prices to what competitive prices would have been. Massachusetts has a four-year statute of limitations for most antitrust claims, so consulting with an antitrust attorney promptly after discovering potential price-fixing is essential.

Class actions are powerful tools in antitrust litigation, allowing numerous individuals or businesses harmed by the same anti-competitive conduct to pursue claims collectively. This approach is particularly valuable in antitrust cases because, while the total harm across all affected parties may be substantial, each individual’s damages might be too small to justify the cost of separate litigation. In a class action, representative plaintiffs file suit on behalf of a defined class of similarly situated individuals or businesses. If the court certifies the class—finding that common questions predominate and class treatment is superior to individual lawsuits—the case proceeds on behalf of all class members unless they specifically opt out. Massachusetts Chapter 93A (the Consumer Protection Act) plays a crucial role in these cases by providing enhanced remedies for unfair or deceptive business practices, which often overlap with antitrust violations. Chapter 93A can be particularly powerful because it allows for double or treble damages for willful violations, attorney’s fees, and in some cases has more favorable standards than federal antitrust laws. For example, a class of Massachusetts consumers who paid inflated prices due to price-fixing might bring claims under both federal antitrust laws and Chapter 93A. Class actions typically conclude with either a court judgment or settlement that provides compensation to class members, often distributed according to a formula based on their purchases or other relevant metrics. These cases not only provide compensation but also serve an important deterrent function by aggregating claims that might otherwise go unpursued.

Anti-competitive mergers and acquisitions can be challenged through several legal channels. While regulatory agencies like the Federal Trade Commission and Department of Justice review significant mergers before completion, private parties also have important legal remedies. Section 7 of the Clayton Act prohibits mergers and acquisitions that may substantially lessen competition or tend to create a monopoly. Massachusetts state law provides additional grounds to challenge harmful consolidation. Private parties harmed by anti-competitive mergers—such as customers facing price increases or competitors experiencing exclusionary effects—can file lawsuits seeking injunctive relief to block the transaction or modifications to protect competition. In some cases, they may also seek damages for harm caused by already-completed mergers. For example, a business might challenge a merger that creates a dominant supplier with the power to raise prices or reduce quality. These cases typically require demonstrating how the merger will harm competition in a properly defined relevant market, often using economic evidence to show likely price effects or reduced innovation. While regulatory challenges receive more attention, private merger challenges can be effective tools, particularly when focused on specific competitive harms that may be overlooked in broader regulatory reviews. Private challenges are often more successful when brought before a merger is completed, as courts are generally reluctant to unwind consummated mergers.