The Standing Of Indirect Purchaser In Anti-monopoly Civil Litigation

Anti-monopoly civil litigation is an important way to enforce the Anti-monopolylaw.The plaintiff standing is one of the key issues in Anti-monopoly civillitigation,while the problem of the plaintiff standing concerning indirect purchasers isthe most complex and controversial one.Antitrust violations may damagewidely.Although indirect purchaser don’t deal with antitrust violators directly, but thedamages may transfer from the sales chain onto them, and often become the ones whosuffer the Antitrust damages ultimately. At present, we haven’t yet met with theproblem regards to the plaintiff standing of the indirect purchasers, but it doesn’tmean that we will never face the the problem. Antitrust enforcement has just started inour country, many provisions are not mature, Antitrust laws in some jurisdictions havebeen implemented for a longer history, and they have accumulated lots of experienceregarding this problem. Learning these experiences is helpful to perfect related systemof our Antitrust law.Both the the Anti-monopoly Law of the United States and EU have an extensiveinfluence in the worldwide,then we will look into the practice of these two areasregarding the plaintiff standing of indirect purchasers. Regarding the issue of indirectpurchasers’s standing,US formed a unique pathway: the Supreme Court of the UnitedStates rejected the plaintiff qualification of the indirect purchasers through two casesand The Supreme Court specifically endorsed this dual-remedial scheme, then severalstates passed legislation to authorize indirect purchasers the right to bringAnti-monopoly civil litigation, then the United States Congress set up the AntitrustModernisation Committee to settle this problem, and the Committee advised givingthe plaintiff standing of the indirect purchasers. EU have been promoted the privateenforcement of the Antitrust Law actively these years, and authorized all the victimsthe right to bring Antitrust civil litigation, and have adopted a series of measures toeliminate the obstacles which the indirect purchasers may faced in bringing anAnti-monopoly civil litigation. After analyzing foreign experience and the status quoof our Anti-monopoly law enforcement, a conclusion have been arrived that weshould give the plaintiff standing of indirect purchasers. At last, I analyzed thenecessity to give the plaintiff standing of indirect purchasers in Anti-monopoly civillitigation and puts forward some suggestions for the related system. These suggestionsconclude reforming the system of our Representative Action, reducing the burden of proof of indirect purchasers, moderating the damage standard, alleviating indirectpurchasers’ burden of litigation cost, allowing the passing-on defense and distirbutingthe damage compensation among the plaintiffs.Most of the suggestios aim atencouraging enthusiasm of indirect purchasers to institute more Anti-monopoly civillitigations. Taking into account incentive measures may lead to abuse of litigation,others aim at balancing the interests of defendants. The standing of indirect purchasersin Anti-monopoly civil litigation is a complicated problem, giving these vicims theplaintiff qualification is just the first step of the problem, concrete suggestions on thesystem remains to be researched further.