5 ms·
The questions you are asking are fundamental to the legal system - they are not specific to antitrust laws. All cases must have standing (a damaged party) and
by koheripbal 5y ago
The questions you are asking are fundamental to the legal system - they are not specific to antitrust laws.
All cases must have standing (a damaged party) and must demonstrate damage.
This is first year law stuff. Without these requirements, anyone could sue anyone for all sorts of made up baloney - and the suits themselves would be the punitive.
- netcan 5y agoWho says antitrust was primarily a legal matter?
- derbOac 5y agoI don't want to speak for anyone, but I think the idea is more akin to conspiracy to commit murder or something. Maybe driving while intoxicated? The target of the murder shouldn't have to be murdered for there to be some grounds for a lawsuit. Similarly, you might arrest someone for driving while intoxicated even though they haven't done any actual damage to person or property. Along these lines, I think the idea is that someone shouldn't have to show specific demonstrable harms that have already occurred in cases of antitrust. It's a gray area but it seems like with some things, harm should be implied or something to be avoided?
- netcan 5y agoGo ahead. I could use a lawyer.
- jasonhansel 5y agoIIRC only civil cases need a plaintiff with standing. If our antitrust laws were criminal laws, this wouldn't be a problem.