The author analyzes the conceptual bases of two rules applied in antitrust litigation: the first allows an individual to sue for an antitrust violation despite his participation in the scheme, while the second requires the plaintiff to pay for the goods he acquired from the defendant although the sales were part of the scheme. The author asserts that the rules are inconsistent with the purpose of antitrust law and, as a reform, offers a new approach to the private attorney general concept.
Kent S. Bernard,
The Actions of the Antitrust Plaintiff: Law, Policy and a Modest Proposal,
Duq. L. Rev.
Available at: https://dsc.duq.edu/dlr/vol16/iss3/4