You might think that if you purchase a product for a price inflated by bad actors in the supply chain that 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.

I hope you enjoy the episode. If so, give us a rating!

This podcast is the audio companion to the Journal on Emerging Issues in Litigation. The Journal is a collaborative project between HB Litigation Conferences and the Fastcase legal research family, which includes Full Court Press, Law Street Media, and Docket Alarm. The podcast itself is a joint effort between HB and our friends at Law Street Media. If you have comments or wish to participate in one our projects please drop me a note at Editor@LitigationConferences.com.

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

The Plight of the Indirect Purchaser with Austin Cohen

Powered by Wave AI