Editing United States antitrust law (section)

==Remedies and enforcement==
{{quotebox|bgcolor=#c6dbf7|width=22em|salign=right|quote=The several district courts of the United States are invested with jurisdiction to prevent and restrain violations of sections 1 to 7 of this title; and it shall be the duty of the several United States attorneys, in their respective districts, under the direction of the [[United States Attorney General|Attorney General]], to institute proceedings in [[Equity (legal concept)|equity]] to prevent and restrain such violations. Such proceedings may be by way of petition setting forth the case and praying that such violation shall be enjoined or otherwise prohibited. When the parties complained of shall have been duly notified of such petition the court shall proceed, as soon as may be, to the hearing and determination of the case; and pending such petition and before final decree, the court may at any time make such temporary restraining order or prohibition as shall be deemed [[Justice|just]] in the premises.|source= —[[Sherman Act 1890]] §[https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/15/4 4]}}

The remedies for violations of U.S. antitrust laws are as broad as any [[equitable remedy]] that a court has the power to make, as well as being able to impose penalties. When private parties have suffered an actionable loss, they may claim compensation. Under the [[Sherman Act 1890]] §7, these may be trebled, a measure to encourage private litigation to enforce the laws and act as a deterrent. The courts may award penalties under §§1 and 2, which are measured according to the size of the company or the business. In their inherent jurisdiction to prevent violations in future, the courts have additionally exercised the power to break up businesses into competing parts under different owners, although this remedy has rarely been exercised (examples include ''[[Standard Oil]]'', ''[[Northern Securities Company]]'', ''[[American Tobacco Company]]'', ''[[AT&T Corporation]]'' and, although reversed on appeal, ''[[Microsoft]]''). Three levels of enforcement come from the Federal government, primarily through the Department of Justice and the Federal Trade Commission, the governments of states, and private parties. Public enforcement of antitrust laws is seen as important, given the cost, complexity and daunting task for private parties to bring litigation, particularly against large corporations.

===Federal government===
[[File:U.S. Department of Justice headquarters, August 12, 2006.jpg|thumb|left|upright=1.15|Along with the [[Federal Trade Commission]] the [[United States Department of Justice|Department of Justice]] in [[Washington, D.C.]] is the public enforcer of [[antitrust]] law.]]
[[File:ApexBuildingHighsmith.jpg|thumb|left|upright=1.15|[[Federal Trade Commission]] building, view from southeast]]

The federal government, via both the [[United States Department of Justice Antitrust Division|Antitrust Division]] of the [[United States Department of Justice]] and the [[Federal Trade Commission]], can bring [[civil lawsuit]]s enforcing the laws. The United States Department of Justice alone may bring criminal antitrust suits under federal antitrust laws.<ref>{{cite journal|last=Blumenthal|first=William|year=2013|title=Models for merging the US antitrust agencies|journal=Journal of Antitrust Enforcement|publisher=Oxford Journals|volume=1|issue=1|pages=24–51 |doi=10.1093/jaenfo/jns003}}</ref> Perhaps the most famous antitrust enforcement actions brought by the federal government were the break-up of [[Bell System divestiture|AT&T's local telephone service monopoly]] in the early 1980s<ref name="'70s 327"/> and its actions against [[United States Microsoft antitrust case|Microsoft in the late 1990s]].

Additionally, the federal government also [[Merger control|reviews potential mergers]] to attempt to prevent [[market concentration]]. As outlined by the [[Hart-Scott-Rodino Antitrust Improvements Act]], larger companies attempting to merge must first notify the Federal Trade Commission and the Department of Justice's Antitrust Division prior to consummating a merger.<ref name="areeda">{{Cite book|last=Areeda|first=Phillip|author2=Kaplow, L. |author3=Edlin, A. S. |title=Antitrust Analysis: Problems, Text, Cases|publisher=Aspen|location=New York|year=2004|edition=Sixth|pages=684–717|isbn=0-7355-2795-4}}</ref> These agencies then review the proposed merger first by defining what the market is and then determining the [[Concentration ratio|market concentration]] using the [[Herfindahl index|Herfindahl-Hirschman Index]] (HHI) and each company's [[market share]].<ref name="areeda"/> The government looks to avoid allowing a company to develop [[market power]], which if left unchecked could lead to monopoly power.<ref name="areeda"/>

The [[United States Department of Justice]] and [[Federal Trade Commission]] target nonreportable mergers for enforcement as well. Notably, between 2009 and 2013, 20% of all merger investigations conducted by the [[United States Department of Justice]] involved nonreportable transactions.<ref>{{cite journal|last1=Hendrickson|first1=Matthew|last2=Vandenborre|first2=Ingrid|last3=Motta|first3=Giorgio|last4=Schwartz|first4=Kenneth|last5=Crandall|first5=Charles|last6=Singer|first6=Michael|title=Antitrust and Competition: Surveying Global M&A Enforcement Trends|journal=Transaction Advisors|issn=2329-9134|url=https://www.transactionadvisors.com/insights/raising-bar-fairness-opinions|access-date=2015-11-03|archive-date=2016-03-04|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160304193825/https://www.transactionadvisors.com/insights/raising-bar-fairness-opinions|url-status=live}}</ref>

*''[[FTC v. Sperry & Hutchinson Trading Stamp Co.]]'', 405 U.S. 233 (1972). Case held that the FTC is entitled to bring enforcement action against businesses that act unfairly, as where supermarket trading stamps company injured consumers by prohibiting them from exchanging trading stamps. The FTC could prevent the restrictive practice as ''unfair'', even though there was no specific antitrust violation.

====International cooperation====
Despite considerable effort by the [[Presidency of Bill Clinton|Clinton administration]], the Federal government attempted to extend antitrust cooperation with other countries for mutual detection, prosecution and enforcement. A bill was unanimously passed by the [[United States Congress|US Congress]];<ref>{{cite web|title=Congressional Record, Volume 140 Issue 145 (Friday, October 7, 1994)|url=https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CREC-1994-10-07/html/CREC-1994-10-07-pt2-PgS92.htm|website=www.gpo.gov|access-date=25 June 2017|archive-date=2018-01-01|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180101082416/https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CREC-1994-10-07/html/CREC-1994-10-07-pt2-PgS92.htm|url-status=live}}</ref> however by 2000 only one [[International treaty|treaty]] has been signed<ref>{{cite book|last1=Zanettin|first1=Bruno|title=Cooperation between antitrust agencies at the international level|date=2002|publisher=Hart|location=Oxford [u.a.]|isbn=1841133515|pages=128–129}}</ref> with [[Australia]].<ref>[http://www3.austlii.edu.au/au/other/dfat/treaties/1999/22.html "Agreement between the Government of Australia and the Government of the United States of America on Mutual Antitrust Enforcement Assistance ATS 22 of 1999"] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170416125826/http://www3.austlii.edu.au/au/other/dfat/treaties/1999/22.html |date=2017-04-16 }}. Australasian Legal Information Institute, Australian Treaties Library. Retrieved on 15 April 2017.</ref> On {{dts|3 July 2017}} the [[Australian Competition & Consumer Commission]] announced it was seeking explanations from a US company, [[Apple Inc|Apple]] In relation to potentially anticompetitive behaviour against an Australian bank in possible relation to [[Apple Pay]].<ref>{{cite web|title=Apple Has Killed Off Westpac's Cash-Transferring Keyboard App|date=26 June 2017|url=https://www.gizmodo.com.au/2017/06/apple-has-killed-off-westpacs-cash-transferring-keyboard-app/|access-date=9 Nov 2019|archive-date=9 November 2019|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20191109013511/https://www.gizmodo.com.au/2017/06/apple-has-killed-off-westpacs-cash-transferring-keyboard-app/|url-status=live}}</ref> It is not known whether the treaty could influence the enquiry or outcome.

In many cases large US companies tend to deal with overseas antitrust within the overseas jurisdiction, autonomous of US laws, such as in [[Microsoft Corp v Commission]] and more recently, [[Google]] v [[European Union]] where the companies were heavily fined.<ref>{{cite news|url=https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-40406542|title=Google hit with record EU fine over Shopping service|publisher=[[BBC News]]|access-date=6 July 2017|archive-date=3 July 2017|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170703215547/http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-40406542|url-status=live}}</ref> Questions have been raised with regards to the consistency of antitrust between jurisdictions where the same antitrust corporate behaviour, and similar antitrust legal environment, is prosecuted  in one jurisdiction but not another.<ref>{{cite web|title=Comparing The US And EU Microsoft Antitrust Prosecutions: How Level is the Playing Field?|url=https://www.researchgate.net/publication/26423319|website=ResearchGate|access-date=6 July 2017|language=en}}</ref>

===State governments===
[[State attorney general|State attorneys general]] may file suits to enforce both state and federal antitrust laws.

*[[Parens patriae]]
*''[[Hawaii v. Standard Oil Co. of Cal.]]'', 405 U.S. 251 (1972) state governments do not have a cause of action to sue for consequential loss for damage to their general economies after an antitrust violation is found.

===Private suits===
Private privates can file lawsuits, in both state and federal court, against violators of state and federal antitrust law. Federal antitrust laws, as well as most state laws, provide for "treble" (triple) damages against antitrust violators in order to encourage private lawsuit enforcement of antitrust law. Thus, if a company is sued for monopolizing a market and the jury concludes the conduct resulted in consumers' being overcharged $200,000, that amount will automatically be tripled, so the injured consumers will receive $600,000. The United States Supreme Court summarized why Congress authorized private antitrust lawsuits in the case ''[[Hawaii v. Standard Oil Co. of Cal.]]'', 405 U.S. 251, 262 (1972):

{{quote|Every violation of the antitrust laws is a blow to the free-enterprise system envisaged by Congress. This system depends on strong competition for its health and vigor, and strong competition depends, in turn, on compliance with antitrust legislation. In enacting these laws, Congress had many means at its disposal to penalize violators. It could have, for example, required violators to compensate federal, state, and local governments for the estimated damage to their respective economies caused by the violations. But, this remedy was not selected. Instead, Congress chose to permit all persons to sue to recover three times their actual damages every time they were injured in their business or property by an antitrust violation. By offering potential litigants the prospect of a recovery in three times the amount of their damages, Congress encouraged these persons to serve as "private attorneys general".}}

*''[[Pfizer, Inc. v. Government of India]]'', 434 U.S. 308 (1978) foreign governments have standing to sue in private actions in the U.S. courts.
*''[[Bigelow v. RKO Radio Pictures, Inc.]]'', 327 U.S. 251 (1946) treble damages awarded under the Clayton Act §4 needed not to be mathematically precise, but based on a reasonable estimate of loss, and not speculative. This meant a jury could set a higher estimate of how much movie theaters lost, when the film distributors conspired with other theaters to let them show films first.
*''[[Illinois Brick Co. v. Illinois]]'', 431 U.S. 720 (1977) indirect purchasers of goods where prices have been raised have no standing to sue. Only the direct contractors of cartel members may, to avoid double or multiple recovery.
*''[[Mitsubishi Motors Corp. v. Soler Chrysler-Plymouth, Inc.]]'', 473 U.S. 614 (1985) on arbitration