Chipping away at the Illinois brick wall: expanding exceptions to the indirect purchaser rule

For over thirty years, the Supreme Court's decisions in Illinois Brick Co. v. Illinois to deny compensation to indirect purchasers harmed by antitrust violations has drawn consistent criticism. Illinois Brick limits private treble damage actions to the antitrust violator's direct customers, leaving subsequent purchasers who often suffer substantial harm without a remedy. Here, Duffy begins by identifying deterrence and compensation as the twin aims of antitrust law before discussing Illinois Brick, which deemphasized compensation and elevated other policy concerns. He also determines how changes in the antitrust landscape have undermined most of the policy rationales once supporting Illinois Brick. In addition, he describes a variety of situations in which allowing an exception promotes antitrust goals more effectively than the rule itself, and it culminates in an argument for exceptions when the direct purchaser is unlikely to sue, rather than limiting indirect purchaser suits to cases where the direct purchaser is legally unable to do so.