You might think that if you purchase a product for a price inflated by bad actors in the supply chain, you would be able to collect damages. Unfortunately, depending on who you are, you would be wrong.

Consumers and businesses, indirect purchasers of products whose prices are fixed by those who supply the maker of your purchase, may not collect damages in states that, surprisingly, do not have antitrust laws that give them standing.

But what about federal law? Why do some states provide for damages and others do not? Are there alternatives?  Are there any pro-purchaser changes on the horizon that could impact antitrust litigation brought by indirect buyers?

For answers to these questions and more, listen to my interview with attorney Austin Cohen of Levin Sedran & Berman LLP of Philadelphia. His practice focuses on antitrust and business law, class actions, torts and products liability, and environmental damage litigation. Austin received a BA in Economics and History from the University of Pennsylvania and his JD, cum laude, from the University of Pittsburgh School of Law. During law school, he interned for the Honorable Lowell Reed (E.D. Pa.) June – August, 1995. He also served as an Executive Editor and Associate Editor for the University of Pittsburgh Journal of Law and Commerce and was a finalist in the Murray S. Love Trial Moot Court Competition.

Thanks for listening!

If you like what you hear, please give us a rating. You’d be amazed at how much that helps.

If you have questions for Tom or would like to participate, you can reach him at Editor@LitigationConferences.com.

Ask him about creating this kind of content for your firm — podcasts, webinars, blogs, articles, papers, and more.

Tom Hagy
Litigation Enthusiast and
Host of the Emerging Litigation Podcast
LinkedIn

FILED UNDER: Complex Litigation | MassTorts + Class Actions​​
TAGS: Antitrust | Corporate & Securities | Emerging Litigation & Risk | Litigation & appeals