← All Authorities
United States Leading Case anti competitive agreements

Brunswick Corp v Pueblo Bowl-O-Mat Inc

429 U.S. 477 (1977)
JurisdictionUnited States
CourtUS Supreme Court
Year1977
StatusBinding authority

Summary

Antitrust plaintiffs must demonstrate injury of the type the antitrust laws were designed to prevent, not merely injury causally linked to a defendant's conduct.

Key Principle

antitrust standing; antitrust injury required; injury must be of type antitrust laws were intended to prevent

Area of Law

competition

Related Cases

ACCC v Pacific National Pty Ltd [2020] FCAFC 77

Full Federal Court considered the test for substantially lessening competition under s.50 CCA in the context of a rail freight acquisition.

ACCC v Yazaki Corporation (2018) 262 CLR 1

HCA upheld record cartel penalties for wire harness market conduct, affirming that penalties must deter contravener and others, considering nature, extent, and duration of cartel.

ACCC v Pfizer Australia Pty Ltd [2018] FCAFC 78

Full Federal Court considered whether Pfizer's patent evergreening strategy in the pharmaceutical market constituted misuse of market power under s 46 of the Competition and Consumer Act.

Ask CommonBench about this case

Get a detailed analysis of Brunswick Corp v Pueblo Bowl-O-Mat Inc and how it applies to your situation.

Explain Brunswick Corp v Pueblo Bowl-O...