New Jersey Statutes

N.J. Stat. § 56:9-12 (2026)

Treble damage suit

✓ current as of May 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section JustiaN.J. Stat. CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

12. a. Any person who shall be injured in his business or property by reason of anticompetitive conduct in violation of the provisions of P.L.1970, c.73 (C.56:9-1 et seq.) may sue therefor and shall recover a sum of not less than $1,000 or threefold the damages sustained by him and interest on the damages from date of complaint, whichever amount is greater, together with reasonable attorneys' fees, filing fees and reasonable costs of suit; provided that indirect purchasers injured by an illegal overcharge shall be entitled to recover only compensatory damages, together with reasonable attorneys' fees, filing fees, and reasonable costs of suit in actions not brought under subsection b. of this section. Reasonable costs of suit may include, but shall not be limited to the expenses of discovery and document reproduction.

b. The State and any of its political subdivisions and public agencies shall be deemed a person within the meaning of this section. The Attorney General, on behalf of the State or any of its political subdivisions or public agencies, or the political subdivision or public agency at the direction of or with the permission of the Attorney General, may institute an action to recover the damages provided for by this section or by any comparable provisions of Federal law, together with reasonable attorneys' fees, filing fees and reasonable costs of suit.

c. In any action pursuant to P.L.1970, c.73 (C.56:9-1 et seq.), the fact that the State, or any political subdivision or public agency of the State or any political subdivision, or any person who has sustained damages by reason of violation of P.L.1970, c.73 (C.56:9-1 et seq.), has not dealt directly with the defendant shall not bar or otherwise limit recovery except as provided in this section. In any action or actions in which claims are asserted against a defendant by both direct and indirect purchasers, the court may take such steps as the court deems appropriate to avoid duplicate recovery of damages and to obtain substantial fairness. In any action in which both direct and indirect purchasers are involved, a defendant shall be entitled to prove as a partial or complete defense to a claim for damages that the illegal overcharge has been passed on to others, including the defendant, who are themselves entitled to recover, so as to avoid duplication of recovery of damages.

d. In the event damages in a class action or an action instituted by the Attorney General remain unclaimed by, or undistributed to, the direct or indirect purchasers, the class representative or the Attorney General, as applicable, the Attorney General may apply to the court and such funds shall escheat to the State upon showing that reasonable efforts made by the State to distribute the funds have been unsuccessful.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 6 cases (3 in the last 5 years), 1976–2025 · leading case: Judice's Sunshine Pontiac, Inc. v. Gen. Motors Corp., 418 F. Supp. 1212 (D.N.J. 1976).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Judice's Sunshine Pontiac, Inc. v. Gen. Motors Corp., 418 F. Supp. 1212 (D.N.J. 1976). · cites it 4× “§ 15 ; N.J.S.A. 56:9-12. 7 . The other alleged co-conspirators include certain persons and corporations operating automobile dealerships under licenses granted by General Motors.”

In Re New Motor Vehs. Canadian Exp. Antitrust Litig., 350 F. Supp. 2d 160 (D. Me. 2004). “(1991) (proposing to amend section 12(a) of the Antitrust Act to allow recovery for “[a]ny person who shall be injured directly or indirectly in his business or property by reason of a violation of the, [sic] provisions of this act”) with N.J. Stat. Ann. § 56:9-12 (a) (allowing…”

In Re Chicken Antitrust Litig., 560 F. Supp. 943 (N.D. Ga. 1979). · cites it 2× “(12) The State of New Jersey, for itself and on behalf of all political subdivisions and public agencies in the State of New Jersey, pursuant to Section 12(b) of the New Jersey Antitrust Act (N.J.S.A § 56:9-12(b)) and Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.”

Massachusetts Laborers' Health & Welfare Fund v. Boehringer Ingelheim Pharm., Inc. (D. Mass. 2025). · cites it 2× “” N.J. Stat. Ann. § 56:9-12 (a). The statute further states that “the fact that .”

Marmo & Sons Gen. Contracting, LLC v. Biagi Farms, LLC (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 2024). “2C:41-4, (6) tortious interference with contract, and (7) restraint of trade under N.J.S.A. 56:9-12. Biagi also pled a third-party complaint that included claims against the Marmos individually.”

Connecticut v. Aurobindo Pharma USA, Inc. (D. Conn. 2025). “N.J.S.A. § 56:9-12. New Jersey argues that the Attorney General has general parens patriae authority, citing In re D.”

— N.J. Stat. § 56:9-12(a) — 1 case

Judice's Sunshine Pontiac, Inc. v. Gen. Motors Corp., 418 F. Supp. 1212 (D.N.J. 1976). “§ 15 ; N.J.S.A. 56:9-12. 7 . The other alleged co-conspirators include certain persons and corporations operating automobile dealerships under licenses granted by General Motors.”

— N.J. Stat. § 56:9-12(b) — 1 case

In Re Chicken Antitrust Litig., 560 F. Supp. 943 (N.D. Ga. 1979). “(12) The State of New Jersey, for itself and on behalf of all political subdivisions and public agencies in the State of New Jersey, pursuant to Section 12(b) of the New Jersey Antitrust Act (N.J.S.A § 56:9-12(b)) and Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.”

Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.