United States Ninth Circuit

In a suit by automated teller machine (ATM) cardholders, who allege horizontal price fixing of fees paid to the ATM owners by the banks (issuing the ATM cards to the cardholders) when cardholders retrieve cash from an ATM not owned by their bank, the district court's summary judgment dismissal of this suit for lack of antitrust standing is affirmed where: 1) plaintiffs do not directly pay the allegedly fixed fee, therefore, as indirect purchasers, Supreme Court precedent prohibits them from bringing suit, under Illinois Brick Co. v. Illinois, 431 U.S. 720 (1977); 2) plaintiffs do not qualify for the narrow exceptions to the Illinois Brick rule, because a) they do not allege a conspiracy to fix the price paid by the plaintiffs, and b) the banks are not controlled by each other or by the ATM network; and 3) therefore, plaintiffs do not have standing under section 4 of the Clayton Act to proceed with their section 1 Sherman Act suit.

Appellate Information

• Decided 07/12/2012
• Published 07/12/2012

Judges

• N.R. SMITH

Court

• United States Ninth Circuit

Counsel