U.S. Supreme Court

Case Status


Docket Number



2006 Term

Oral Argument Date

November 28, 2006


Questions Presented

Whether a plaintiff alleging predatory buying may, as the Ninth Circuit held, establish liability by persuading a jury that the defendant purchased more inputs “than it needed” or paid a higher price for those inputs “than necessary,” so as “to prevent the Plaintiffs from obtaining the [inputs] they needed at a fair price”; or whether the plaintiff instead must satisfy what the Ninth Circuit termed the “higher” Brooke Group standard by showing that the defendant (I) paid so much for raw materials that the price at which it sold its products did not coyer its costs and (2) had a dangerous probability of recouping its losses.

Case Updates

Supreme Court adopts standards under antitrust laws governing predatory buying claims

February 20, 2007

Unanimously agreeing with NCLC, the Supreme Court adopted, for the purposes of predatory purchasing claims, the same standard it employs in predatory pricing cases.

U.S. Chamber files amicus brief on the merits

August 24, 2006

NCLC argued that the Ninth Circuit’s effort to resolve predatory purchasing claims with vague standards (like paying a price “higher than necessary” and preventing competitors from being able to buy at a “fair” price) would impede competition and cause unnecessary treble damages liability. Instead, NCLC argued the Ninth Circuit should have adopted the recoupment standard employed in analyzing predatory selling claims.

NCLC filed twice in this case: once supporting cert. and once on the merits.

Case Documents