Tennessee Code Annotated

Tenn. Code Ann. § 47-25-106 (2026)

Recovery of consideration as remedy for damages

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section JustiaTenn. Code CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

Amended by 2024 Tenn. Acts, ch. 776,s 8, eff. 4/23/2024.

Amended by 2024 Tenn. Acts, ch. 776,s 7, eff. 4/23/2024.

Amended by 2024 Tenn. Acts, ch. 776,s 6, eff. 4/23/2024.

Amended by 2024 Tenn. Acts, ch. 776,s 5, eff. 4/23/2024.

Acts 1891, ch. 218, § 6; 1903, ch. 140, § 4; Shan., § 3190; Acts 1927, ch. 60, § 3; mod. Code 1932, § 5886; T.C.A. (orig. ed.), § 69-106.


Notes of Decisions
Cited in 22 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1990–2025 · leading case: Freeman Indus., LLC v. Eastman Chem. Co., 172 S.W.3d 512 (Tenn. 2005).
Freeman Indus., LLC v. Eastman Chem. Co., 172 S.W.3d 512 (Tenn. 2005). · cites it 18× “Indirect Purchasers Tennessee Code Annotated section 47-25-106 (2001) provides for a civil remedy against those who violate the TTPA.”
Leggett v. Duke Energy Corp., 308 S.W.3d 843 (Tenn. 2010). · cites it 4× “5 Tennessee Code Annotated section 47-25-106 creates a private cause of action for persons harmed by violations of the TTPA: Any person who is injured or damaged by any such arrangement, contract, agreement, trust, or combination described in this part may sue for and recover,…”
Bennett v. Visa U.S.A. Inc., 198 S.W.3d 747 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2006). · cites it 2× “Tenn.Code Ann. § 47-25-106 (2005). The Complaint charges that defendants entered into an “arrangement” or “combination” in which they required retail merchants who accepted their credit cards to also accept their debit cards.”
Supreme Auto Transp., LLC v. Arcelor Mittal USA, Inc., 902 F.3d 735 (7th Cir. 2018). “3, -33; Tenn. Code Ann. § 47-25-106 ; Utah Code Ann.”
Freeman Indus. LLC v. Eastman Chem. Co., 227 S.W.3d 561 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2006). · cites it 3× “In its opinion, the Supreme Court held that “an indirect purchaser may bring an action under Tennessee Code Annotated section 47-25-106 for conduct in violation of the TTPA even though the indirect purchaser is a nonresident of this state.”
In re Linerboard Antitrust Litig., 223 F.R.D. 335 (E.D. Pa. 2004). · cites it 2× “Tenn.Code Ann. § 47-25-106. In Maestas v.”
In re New Motor Vehs. Canadian Exp. Antitrust Litig., 235 F.R.D. 127 (D. Me. 2006). · cites it 2× “July 31, 2003) (quoting Tenn.Code Ann. § 47-25-106). But the Tennessee Court of Appeals has made a statement that seems more limiting.”
Hyde v. Abbott Labs., Inc., 473 S.E.2d 680 (N.C. Ct. App. 1996). “” Tenn. Code Ann. § 47-25-106 . The Blake Court held that this section grants standing to any person or persons injured under Tennessee antitrust laws “whether the individual is a direct purchaser or indirect purchaser.”
In Re Terazosin Hydrochloride Antitrust Litig., 160 F. Supp. 2d 1365 (S.D. Fla. 2001). “” Tenn. Code Ann. § 47-25-102 . The statute generally authorizes suits by indirect purchasers.”
Tacker v. Wilson, 830 F. Supp. 422 (W.D. Tenn. 1993). · cites it 5× “Tenn.Code Ann. § 47-25-106 (1988). 2 Plaintiff has alleged no facts that would indicate that plaintiff transacted business with any of the defendants.”
Jo Ann Forman, Inc. v. Nat'l Council on Comp. Ins., Inc., 13 S.W.3d 365 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1999). · cites it 2× “Tenn. Code Ann. § 47-25-106 (1995). The case turns entirely on whether or not increased costs of workers’ compensa *368 tion insurance involves a “product or article” within the meaning of Tennessee Code Annotated section 47-25-101.”
California v. Infineon Tech. AG, 531 F. Supp. 2d 1124 (N.D. Cal. 2007). “See *1171 Tenn.Code Ann. § 47-25-106 (stating only that “[a]ny person who may be injured or damaged by” unlawful conduct under the statute may sue for and recover “the full consideration or sum paid by the [injured] person for any goods, wares, merchandise, or articles_”).”
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.