15 U.S.C. § 6a

Conduct involving trade or commerce with foreign nations

Read at: OLRCuscode.house.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov JustiaTitle 15 CasesGoogle Scholar

Sections 1 to 7 of this title shall not apply to conduct involving trade or commerce (other than import trade or import commerce) with foreign nations unless—(1) such conduct has a direct, substantial, and reasonably foreseeable effect—(A) on trade or commerce which is not trade or commerce with foreign nations, or on import trade or import commerce with foreign nations; or(B) on export trade or export commerce with foreign nations, of a person engaged in such trade or commerce in the United States; and(2) such effect gives rise to a claim under the provisions of sections 1 to 7 of this title, other than this section.If sections 1 to 7 of this title apply to such conduct only because of the operation of paragraph (1)(B), then sections 1 to 7 of this title shall apply to such conduct only for injury to export business in the United States.(July 2, 1890, ch. 647, § 7, as added Pub. L. 97–290, title IV, § 402, Oct. 8, 1982, 96 Stat. 1246.)Editorial NotesPrior Provisions

A prior section 7 of act July 2, 1890, ch. 647, 26 Stat. 210, related to suits by persons injured by acts in violation of sections 1 to 7 of this title and was classified as a note under section 15 of this title, prior to repeal by act July 7, 1955, ch. 283, § 3, 69 Stat. 283, effective six months after July 7, 1955.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 167 cases (17 in the last 5 years), 1984–2026 · leading case: F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd. v. Empagran S. A., 542 U.S. 155 (2004).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd. v. Empagran S. A., 542 U.S. 155 (2004). · cites it 9× “1246 , 15 U. S. C. § 6a. It then creates exceptions to the general rule, applicable where (roughly speaking) that conduct significantly harms imports, domestic commerce, or American exporters.”

Lotes Co. v. Hon Hai Precision Indus. Co., 753 F.3d 395 (2d Cir. 2014). · cites it 8× “§§ 1 , 2, we must decide whether the restrictions Congress has imposed on antitrust claims based on foreign conduct under the Foreign Trade Antitrust Improvements Act (“FTAIA”), 15 U.S.C. § 6a, are jurisdictional in nature; whether the defendants in this case have waived the…”

Biocad JSC v. F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd., 942 F.3d 88 (2d Cir. 2019). · cites it 9× “The district court dismissed the claims principally because (1) plaintiff‐appellant failed to sufficiently plead antitrust standing and (2) its claims are barred by the provisions of the Foreign Trade Antitrust Improvements Act that exclude from the scope of antitrust laws…”

Animal Sci. Prods., Inc. v. China Nat'l Metals & Minerals Imp. & Exp. Corp., 596 F. Supp. 2d 842 (D.N.J. 2008). · cites it 7× “See 15 U.S.C. § 6a. Thus, the FTAIA poses the following three-prong inquiry.”

United States v. Hui Hsiung, 778 F.3d 738 (9th Cir. 2014). · cites it 10× “The defendants also urge that because the bulk of the panels were sold to third parties worldwide rather than for direct import into the United States, the nexus to United States commerce was insufficient under the Sherman Act as amended by the Foreign Trade Antitrust…”

United States v. Lsl Biotechnologies Seminis Vegetable Seeds, Inc. Lsl Plantscience Lcc, 379 F.3d 672 (9th Cir. 2004). · cites it 6× “On the other hand, the district court analyzed whether the court had subject matter jurisdiction over the portion of the Complaint alleging a restraint on the sale of seeds to Mexico *677 under Rule 12(b)(1) and the Foreign Trade Antitrust Improvements Act of 1982, 15 U.S.C. §…”

Empagran S.A. v. F. Hoffman-LaRoche, Ltd., 315 F.3d 338 (D.C. Cir. 2003). · cites it 4× “This appeal requires us to interpret the Foreign Trade Antitrust Improvements Act (“FTAIA”), 15 U.S.C. § 6a, to determine the jurisdictional reach of the federal antitrust laws.”

Minn-Chem, Incorpora v. Agrium Inco, 683 F.3d 845 (7th Cir. 2012). · cites it 3× “A panel of the court concluded that the complaint failed to meet the requirements of the Foreign Trade Antitrust Improvements Act of 1982 (FTAIA), 15 U.S.C. § 6a, and it thus voted to reverse.”

McBee v. Delica Co., Ltd., 417 F.3d 107 (1st Cir. 2005). · cites it 3× “2003) (en banc) (question whether Sherman Act applied extraterritorially under the Foreign Trade Antitrust Improvements Act (FTAIA), 15 U.S.C. § 6a, went to subject matter jurisdiction of court).”

Animal Sci. Prods., Inc. v. China Nat'l Metals & Minerals Imp. & Exp. Corp., 702 F. Supp. 2d 320 (D.N.J. 2010). · cites it 11× “In contrast, to avoid the FTAIA jurisdictional bar, the plaintiff must show either that: (a) the defendants are importers of goods/services in the United States, see 15 U.S.C. § 6a (stating the notoriously inelegant introduction that “[the Sherman Act] shall not apply to conduct…”

Animal Sci. Prods., Inc. v. China Minmetals Corp., 654 F.3d 462 (3rd Cir. 2011). · cites it 2× “appeal the District Court’s dismissal of their First Amended Complaint, in part without prejudice, on the basis that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction under the Foreign Trade Antitrust Improvements Act of 1982 (the “FTAIA”), 15 U.S.C. § 6a. For the reasons that follow, we…”

In re TFT-LCD (Flat Panel) Antitrust Litig., 267 F.R.D. 583 (N.D. Cal. 2010). · cites it 4× “Subject matter jurisdiction/FTAIA Defendants contend that the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over most, if not all, of the indirect purchaser plaintiffs’ claims because the alleged anticompetitive conduct occurred overseas.”

Show all 167 citing cases →

— 15 U.S.C. § 6a(1) — 9 cases

F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd. v. Empagran S. A., 542 U.S. 155 (2004). “1246 , 15 U. S. C. § 6a. It then creates exceptions to the general rule, applicable where (roughly speaking) that conduct significantly harms imports, domestic commerce, or American exporters.”

Lotes Co. v. Hon Hai Precision Indus. Co., 753 F.3d 395 (2d Cir. 2014). “§§ 1 , 2, we must decide whether the restrictions Congress has imposed on antitrust claims based on foreign conduct under the Foreign Trade Antitrust Improvements Act (“FTAIA”), 15 U.S.C. § 6a, are jurisdictional in nature; whether the defendants in this case have waived the…”

CSr Ltd. v. Cigna Corp., 405 F. Supp. 2d 526 (D.N.J. 2005).

Animal Sci. Prods., Inc. v. China Nat'l Metals & Minerals Imp. & Exp. Corp., 702 F. Supp. 2d 320 (D.N.J. 2010). “In contrast, to avoid the FTAIA jurisdictional bar, the plaintiff must show either that: (a) the defendants are importers of goods/services in the United States, see 15 U.S.C. § 6a (stating the notoriously inelegant introduction that “[the Sherman Act] shall not apply to conduct…”

Best Buy Co., Inc. v. Hannstar Display Corp., 637 F. App'x 981 (9th Cir. 2016).

— 15 U.S.C. § 6a(1)(A) — 10 cases

Animal Sci. Prods., Inc. v. Hebei Welcome Pharm. Co., 837 F.3d 175 (2d Cir. 2016).

Carpet Grp. Int'l v. Oriental Rug Importers Ass'n, Inc., 227 F.3d 62 (3rd Cir. 2000).

Prevent Dev GMBH v. Adient PLC (E.D. Mich. 2021).

In Re: Vitamin C Antitrust Litig. (2d Cir. 2016).

— 15 U.S.C. § 6a(1)(B) — 1 case

CSr Ltd. v. Cigna Corp., 405 F. Supp. 2d 526 (D.N.J. 2005).

— 15 U.S.C. § 6a(1)(b) — 1 case

Mountain Crest SRL, LLC v. Anheuser-Busch InBEV SA/NV (W.D. Wis. 2020).

— 15 U.S.C. § 6a(2) — 14 cases

Animal Sci. Prods., Inc. v. China Nat'l Metals & Minerals Imp. & Exp. Corp., 596 F. Supp. 2d 842 (D.N.J. 2008). “See 15 U.S.C. § 6a. Thus, the FTAIA poses the following three-prong inquiry.”

Motorola Mobility LLC v. AU Optronics Corp., 775 F.3d 816 (7th Cir. 2014).

Turicentro, S.A. v. Am. Airlines Inc., 303 F.3d 293 (3rd Cir. 2002).

— 15 U.S.C. § 6a(l) — 13 cases

In Re Chocolate Confectionary Antitrust Litig., 602 F. Supp. 2d 538 (M.D. Penn. 2009).

Empagran S.A. v. F. Hoffman-LaRoche, Ltd., 315 F.3d 338 (D.C. Cir. 2003). “This appeal requires us to interpret the Foreign Trade Antitrust Improvements Act (“FTAIA”), 15 U.S.C. § 6a, to determine the jurisdictional reach of the federal antitrust laws.”

Sonterra Capital Master Fund Ltd. v. Credit Suisse Grp. AG, 277 F. Supp. 3d 521 (S.D.N.Y. 2017).

United States v. Lsl Biotechnologies Seminis Vegetable Seeds, Inc. Lsl Plantscience Lcc, 379 F.3d 672 (9th Cir. 2004). “On the other hand, the district court analyzed whether the court had subject matter jurisdiction over the portion of the Complaint alleging a restraint on the sale of seeds to Mexico *677 under Rule 12(b)(1) and the Foreign Trade Antitrust Improvements Act of 1982, 15 U.S.C. §…”

Boyd v. Awb Ltd., 544 F. Supp. 2d 236 (S.D.N.Y. 2008).

— 15 U.S.C. § 6a(l)(A) — 14 cases

Animal Sci. Prods., Inc. v. China Nat'l Metals & Minerals Imp. & Exp. Corp., 596 F. Supp. 2d 842 (D.N.J. 2008). “See 15 U.S.C. § 6a. Thus, the FTAIA poses the following three-prong inquiry.”

Empagran S.A. v. F. Hoffmann-Laroche, Ltd., 388 F.3d 337 (D.C. Cir. 2005).

United States v. Hui Hsiung, 778 F.3d 738 (9th Cir. 2014). “The defendants also urge that because the bulk of the panels were sold to third parties worldwide rather than for direct import into the United States, the nexus to United States commerce was insufficient under the Sherman Act as amended by the Foreign Trade Antitrust…”

Motorola Mobility LLC v. AU Optronics Corp., 775 F.3d 816 (7th Cir. 2014).

— 15 U.S.C. § 6a(l)(B) — 4 cases

O.N.E. Shipping Ltd. v. Flota Mercante Grancolombiana, S.A., Andino Chem. Shipping, Inc., & Maritima Transligra, S.A., 830 F.2d 449 (2d Cir. 1987).

Emerson Elec. Co. v. Le Carbone Lorraine, SA, 500 F. Supp. 2d 437 (D.N.J. 2007).

McGlinchy v. Shell Chem. Co., 845 F.2d 802 (9th Cir. 1988).

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.