'Speculative' Antitrust Damages

Washington Law Review, Vol. 70, p. 423, 1995

42 Pages Posted: 28 May 2009

See all articles by Roger D. Blair

Roger D. Blair

University of Florida

William H. Page

University of Florida Levin College of Law

Date Written: May 27, 2009


This article, published in 1995, describes antitrust law’s framework for proving individual harm as the basis for an award of treble damages. Antitrust damages are based on a standard of net individual harm, adapted (by the antitrust injury and Illinois Brick doctrines) to conform to a larger principle of net social harm. Net individual harm, so qualified, is measured by the difference between the plaintiff’s actual condition and its “but-for condition,” that is, the condition the plaintiff would have been in but for the defendants’ anticompetitive conduct. The plaintiff must project its but-for condition from a reasonably comparable base experience. In doing so, it must offer a theoretical model and an evidentiary foundation sufficient to isolate the defendant’s illegal conduct as the cause of the difference between the actual and but-for conditions.

Suggested Citation

Blair, Roger D. and Page, William Hepburn, 'Speculative' Antitrust Damages (May 27, 2009). Washington Law Review, Vol. 70, p. 423, 1995, Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=1410767

Roger D. Blair

University of Florida ( email )

342 Matherly Hall
Gainesville, FL 32611-7140
United States
352-392-0179 (Phone)
352-392-7860 (Fax)

William Hepburn Page (Contact Author)

University of Florida Levin College of Law ( email )

P.O. Box 117625
Gainesville, FL 32611-7625
United States

Do you have a job opening that you would like to promote on SSRN?

Paper statistics

Abstract Views
PlumX Metrics