U.S. Code » Title 15 » Chapter CHAPTER 1— MONOPOLIES AND COMBINATIONS IN RESTRAINT OF TRADE

15 U.S.C. § 15c

Actions by State attorneys general

Read at: OLRCuscode.house.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov JustiaTitle 15 CasesGoogle Scholar
(a) Parens patriae; monetary relief; damages; prejudgment interest(1) Any attorney general of a State may bring a civil action in the name of such State, as parens patriae on behalf of natural persons residing in such State, in any district court of the United States having jurisdiction of the defendant, to secure monetary relief as provided in this section for injury sustained by such natural persons to their property by reason of any violation of sections 1 to 7 of this title. The court shall exclude from the amount of monetary relief awarded in such action any amount of monetary relief (A) which duplicates amounts which have been awarded for the same injury, or (B) which is properly allocable to (i) natural persons who have excluded their claims pursuant to subsection (b)(2) of this section, and (ii) any business entity.(2) The court shall award the State as monetary relief threefold the total damage sustained as described in paragraph (1) of this subsection, and the cost of suit, including a reasonable attorney’s fee. The court may award under this paragraph, pursuant to a motion by such State promptly made, simple interest on the total damage for the period beginning on the date of service of such State’s pleading setting forth a claim under the antitrust laws and ending on the date of judgment, or for any shorter period therein, if the court finds that the award of such interest for such period is just in the circumstances. In determining whether an award of interest under this paragraph for any period is just in the circumstances, the court shall consider only—(A) whether such State or the opposing party, or either party’s representative, made motions or asserted claims or defenses so lacking in merit as to show that such party or representative acted intentionally for delay or otherwise acted in bad faith;(B) whether, in the course of the action involved, such State or the opposing party, or either party’s representative, violated any applicable rule, statute, or court order providing for sanctions for dilatory behavior or other wise providing for expeditious proceedings; and(C) whether such State or the opposing party, or either party’s representative, engaged in conduct primarily for the purpose of delaying the litigation or increasing the cost thereof.(b) Notice; exclusion election; final judgment(1) In any action brought under subsection (a)(1) of this section, the State attorney general shall, at such times, in such manner, and with such content as the court may direct, cause notice thereof to be given by publication. If the court finds that notice given solely by publication would deny due process of law to any person or persons, the court may direct further notice to such person or persons according to the circumstances of the case.(2) Any person on whose behalf an action is brought under subsection (a)(1) may elect to exclude from adjudication the portion of the State claim for monetary relief attributable to him by filing notice of such election with the court within such time as specified in the notice given pursuant to paragraph (1) of this subsection.(3) The final judgment in an action under subsection (a)(1) shall be res judicata as to any claim under section 15 of this title by any person on behalf of whom such action was brought and who fails to give such notice within the period specified in the notice given pursuant to paragraph (1) of this subsection.(c) Dismissal or compromise of action

An action under subsection (a)(1) shall not be dismissed or compromised without the approval of the court, and notice of any proposed dismissal or compromise shall be given in such manner as the court directs.

(d) Attorneys’ feesIn any action under subsection (a)—(1) the amount of the plaintiffs’ attorney’s fee, if any, shall be determined by the court; and(2) the court may, in its discretion, award a reasonable attorney’s fee to a prevailing defendant upon a finding that the State attorney general has acted in bad faith, vexatiously, wantonly, or for oppressive reasons.(Oct. 15, 1914, ch. 323, § 4C, as added Pub. L. 94–435, title III, § 301, Sept. 30, 1976, 90 Stat. 1394; amended Pub. L. 96–349, § 4(a)(3), Sept. 12, 1980, 94 Stat. 1157.)Editorial NotesReferences in Text

The antitrust laws, referred to in subsec. (a)(2), are defined in section 12 of this title.

Amendments

1980—Subsec. (a)(2). Pub. L. 96–349 inserted provisions respecting award of prejudgment interest including considerations for the court in determining whether an award is just under the circumstances.

Statutory Notes and Related SubsidiariesEffective Date of 1980 Amendment

Amendment by Pub. L. 96–349 applicable only with respect to actions commenced after Sept. 12, 1980, see section 4(b) of Pub. L. 96–349, set out as a note under section 15 of this title.

Effective Date

Pub. L. 94–435, title III, § 304, Sept. 30, 1976, 90 Stat. 1396, provided that: “The amendments to the Clayton Act made by section 301 of this Act [enacting this section and sections 15d to 15h of this title] shall not apply to any injury sustained prior to the date of enactment of this Act [Sept. 30, 1976].”

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 107 cases (4 in the last 5 years), 1977–2025 · leading case: Kansas v. UtiliCorp United Inc., 497 U.S. 199 (1990).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Kansas v. UtiliCorp United Inc., 497 U.S. 199 (1990). · cites it 10× “1394 , as amended, 15 U. S. C. § 15c, authorizes them to assert claims on behalf of utility customers even if the customers could not assert any claims themselves.”
Clayworth v. Pfizer, Inc., 233 P.3d 1066 (Cal. 2010). · cites it 5× “(15 U.S.C. § 15c(a)(l).) Congress created the remedy out of concern that consumers, the indirect purchasers who typically bear the brunt of antitrust violations in the form of higher prices, had no existing effective redress because the small amounts of their injuries made…”
In re Compact Disc Minimum Advertised Price Anti-Trust Litig., 216 F.R.D. 197 (D. Me. 2003). · cites it 8× “Natural persons in the plaintiff States are represented by the Attorneys General of their respective states pursuant to the parens patriae authority under section 4C of the Clayton Act, 15 U.S.C. § 15c, and parallel state laws.”
Illinois Brick Co. v. Illinois, 431 U.S. 720 (1977). · cites it 3× “1394r-1396, 15 U. S. C. § 15c et seq. (1976 ed.), that Congress understood Hanover Shoe as applying only to defendants.”
State v. Marsh & McLennan Companies, Inc., 944 A.2d 315 (Conn. 2008). · cites it 7× “2d *463 965 (2005), and contends that § 35-44b makes federal case law merely persuasive authority in the present case as the relevant state and federal statutes are fundamentally different, because, unlike § 35-32 (c) (2), the Clayton Act, 15 U.S.C. § 15c, does not expressly…”
Farmers Grp., Inc. v. Lubin, 222 S.W.3d 417 (Tex. 2007). · cites it 6× “[33] See 15 U.S.C. § 15c. [34] Illinois v. Abbott & Assocs.”
Maryland Ex Rel. Sachs v. Mid-Atl. Toyota Distributors, Inc., 525 F. Supp. 1265 (D. Maryland 1981). · cites it 8× “The Pennsylvania complaint differs from the other state complaints, however, in that jurisdiction in Pennsylvania is not based solely on 15 U.S.C. § 15c (the parens patriae section) for violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act, 15 U.”
State v. LG Elec., Inc., 375 P.3d 636 (Wash. 2016). · cites it 3× “The federal Clayton Act authorizes state attorneys general to sue for treble damages for persons injured in their business or property under 15 U.S.C. § 15c. The Clayton Act’s four-year statute of limitations provision expressly applies to actions brought pursuant to 15 U.”
Reiter v. Sonotone Corp., 442 U.S. 330 (1979). · cites it 2× “1394 , 15 U. S. C. § 15c et seq. The text and legislative history of this statute make clear that in 1976 Congress believed that consumers have a cause of action under § 4, which the statute authorizes the states to assert in a parens patriae capacity.”
Marek v. Chesny, 473 U.S. 1 (1985). · cites it 2× “1394 , 1396, as amended, 15 U. S. C. §§ 15c(a)(2), 26. 12. Unfair Competition Act of 1916, 39 Stat.”
New York v. Feldman, 210 F. Supp. 2d 294 (S.D.N.Y. 2002). · cites it 3× “at 6 (quoting 15 U.S.C. § 15c); see also id. at 14-15 & n.”
Rosenberg v. Jack Foley Realty, Inc., 83 F.R.D. 305 (D. Maryland 1979). · cites it 6× “The “State” class involves a parens patriae action brought under 15 U.S.C. § 15c on behalf of natural persons within the State of Maryland who similarly sold used residential real estate in Montgomery County through the services of the defendants on or after September 30, 1976,…”
Show all 107 citing cases →
— 15 U.S.C. § 15c(a) — 10 cases
In re Cardizem CD Antitrust Litig., 218 F.R.D. 508 (E.D. Mich. 2003).
Estados Unidos Mexicanos v. DeCoster, 229 F.3d 332 (1st Cir. 2000).
Lubin v. Farmers Grp., Inc., 157 S.W.3d 113 (Tex. App. 2005).
In Re State of Illinois Petition to Inspect & Copy Grand Jury Materials. Appeal of State of Illinois, 659 F.2d 800 (7th Cir. 1981).
Daggett v. Webster, 34 F. Supp. 2d 73 (D. Me. 1999).
— 15 U.S.C. § 15c(a)(1) — 14 cases
Kansas v. UtiliCorp United Inc., 497 U.S. 199 (1990). “1394 , as amended, 15 U. S. C. § 15c, authorizes them to assert claims on behalf of utility customers even if the customers could not assert any claims themselves.”
State v. LG Elec., Inc., 375 P.3d 636 (Wash. 2016). “The federal Clayton Act authorizes state attorneys general to sue for treble damages for persons injured in their business or property under 15 U.S.C. § 15c. The Clayton Act’s four-year statute of limitations provision expressly applies to actions brought pursuant to 15 U.”
United States v. Jeffrey I. Cohen, 733 F.2d 128 (D.C. Cir. 1984).
In re Packaged Seafood Prods. Antitrust Litig., 338 F. Supp. 3d 1079 (S.D. Cal. 2018).
In Re Coordinated Pretrial Proceedings in Petroleum Prods. Antitrust Litig., 497 F. Supp. 218 (C.D. Cal. 1980).
— 15 U.S.C. § 15c(a)(2) — 9 cases
Marek v. Chesny, 473 U.S. 1 (1985). “1394 , 1396, as amended, 15 U. S. C. §§ 15c(a)(2), 26. 12. Unfair Competition Act of 1916, 39 Stat.”
State of Illinois v. Sangamo Constr. Co. & J. L. Simmons Co., Inc., Defendants, 657 F.2d 855 (7th Cir. 1981).
In re Compact Disc Minimum Advertised Price Anti-Trust Litig., 216 F.R.D. 197 (D. Me. 2003). “Natural persons in the plaintiff States are represented by the Attorneys General of their respective states pursuant to the parens patriae authority under section 4C of the Clayton Act, 15 U.S.C. § 15c, and parallel state laws.”
Kenny A. Ex Rel. Winn v. Perdue, 547 F.3d 1319 (11th Cir. 2008).
Maryland Ex Rel. Sachs v. Mid-Atl. Toyota Distributors, Inc., 525 F. Supp. 1265 (D. Maryland 1981). “The Pennsylvania complaint differs from the other state complaints, however, in that jurisdiction in Pennsylvania is not based solely on 15 U.S.C. § 15c (the parens patriae section) for violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act, 15 U.”
— 15 U.S.C. § 15c(a)(l) — 14 cases
Clayworth v. Pfizer, Inc., 233 P.3d 1066 (Cal. 2010). “(15 U.S.C. § 15c(a)(l).) Congress created the remedy out of concern that consumers, the indirect purchasers who typically bear the brunt of antitrust violations in the form of higher prices, had no existing effective redress because the small amounts of their injuries made…”
Kansas v. UtiliCorp United Inc., 497 U.S. 199 (1990). “1394 , as amended, 15 U. S. C. § 15c, authorizes them to assert claims on behalf of utility customers even if the customers could not assert any claims themselves.”
In re Compact Disc Minimum Advertised Price Anti-Trust Litig., 216 F.R.D. 197 (D. Me. 2003). “Natural persons in the plaintiff States are represented by the Attorneys General of their respective states pursuant to the parens patriae authority under section 4C of the Clayton Act, 15 U.S.C. § 15c, and parallel state laws.”
Clark Oil & Refining Corp. v. Ashcroft, 639 S.W.2d 594 (Mo. 1982).
Maryland Ex Rel. Sachs v. Mid-Atl. Toyota Distributors, Inc., 525 F. Supp. 1265 (D. Maryland 1981). “The Pennsylvania complaint differs from the other state complaints, however, in that jurisdiction in Pennsylvania is not based solely on 15 U.S.C. § 15c (the parens patriae section) for violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act, 15 U.”
— 15 U.S.C. § 15c(b)(1) — 2 cases
In re Compact Disc Minimum Advertised Price Antitrust Litig., 236 F.R.D. 48 (D. Me. 2006).
State of New York by Vacco v. Reebok Intern. Ltd., 903 F. Supp. 532 (S.D.N.Y. 1995).
— 15 U.S.C. § 15c(b)(2) — 1 case
Golub v. Mid-Atl. Toyota Distributors, Inc., 93 F.R.D. 485 (D. Maryland 1982).
— 15 U.S.C. § 15c(b)(l) — 4 cases
In re Compact Disc Minimum Advertised Price Anti-Trust Litig., 216 F.R.D. 197 (D. Me. 2003). “Natural persons in the plaintiff States are represented by the Attorneys General of their respective states pursuant to the parens patriae authority under section 4C of the Clayton Act, 15 U.S.C. § 15c, and parallel state laws.”
In re Toys \R\" Us Antitrust Litig.", 191 F.R.D. 347 (E.D.N.Y 2000).
Pennsylvania v. Budget Fuel Co., 122 F.R.D. 184 (E.D. Pa. 1988).
New York ex rel. Vacco v. Reebok Int'l Ltd., 903 F. Supp. 532 (S.D.N.Y. 1995).
— 15 U.S.C. § 15c(c) — 18 cases
ISC Holding AG v. Nobel Biocare Fin. AG, 688 F.3d 98 (2d Cir. 2012).
Rosenberg v. Jack Foley Realty, Inc., 83 F.R.D. 305 (D. Maryland 1979). “The “State” class involves a parens patriae action brought under 15 U.S.C. § 15c on behalf of natural persons within the State of Maryland who similarly sold used residential real estate in Montgomery County through the services of the defendants on or after September 30, 1976,…”
In re Cardizem CD Antitrust Litig., 218 F.R.D. 508 (E.D. Mich. 2003).
Fed. Trade Comm'n v. Mylan Labs., Inc., 205 F.R.D. 369 (D.D.C. 2002).
In re Compact Disc Minimum Advertised Price Anti-Trust Litig., 216 F.R.D. 197 (D. Me. 2003). “Natural persons in the plaintiff States are represented by the Attorneys General of their respective states pursuant to the parens patriae authority under section 4C of the Clayton Act, 15 U.S.C. § 15c, and parallel state laws.”
— 15 U.S.C. § 15c(d) — 1 case
Massachusetts ex rel Bellotti v. Russell Stover Candies, Inc., 541 F. Supp. 143 (D. Mass. 1982).
— 15 U.S.C. § 15c(d)(2) — 4 cases
Marx v. Gen. Revenue Corp., 668 F.3d 1174 (10th Cir. 2011).
State v. Black, 676 P.2d 963 (Wash. 1984).
Maryland Ex Rel. Sachs v. Mid-Atl. Toyota Distributors, Inc., 525 F. Supp. 1265 (D. Maryland 1981). “The Pennsylvania complaint differs from the other state complaints, however, in that jurisdiction in Pennsylvania is not based solely on 15 U.S.C. § 15c (the parens patriae section) for violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act, 15 U.”
State of Montana v. SuperAmerica, 559 F. Supp. 298 (D. Mont. 1983).
— 15 U.S.C. § 15c(d)(l) — 1 case
State Ex Rel. Sachs v. Mid-Atl. Toyota Distributors, Inc., 605 F. Supp. 440 (D. Maryland 1984).
— 15 U.S.C. § 15c(e) — 1 case
New York v. Reebok Int'l Ltd., 96 F.3d 44 (2d Cir. 1996).
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.