Time to Rebuild The "Illinois Brick" Wall

The "indirect purchaser" rule, which denies standing to indirect purchaser plaintiffs¹ in federal antitrust cases, was the product of two remarkable decisions authored by the late Justice Byron White more than 30 years ago: Hanover Shoe, Inc. v. United Shoe Machinery Corp.² and Illinois Brick Co. v. Illinois.³ Since that time, the indirect purchaser rule has experienced death by a thousand cuts, through both the adoption of so-called "Illinois Brick repealer" statutes by state legislatures and the misguided creation of broad exceptions to the rule by the lower federal courts. Originally conceived as a means of simplifying federal antitrust litigation, the indirect purchaser rule has instead contributed to the complexity of modern cases. Reform of the indirect purchaser rule is long overdue.