## Facts

- Associated General Contractors of California, Inc. (AGC) was a multi-employer association of construction-related contractors in California.
- The California State Council of Carpenters and an affiliated conference board (the Union) represented carpenters and participated in collective bargaining in the same industry.
- The Union alleged AGC and its members coerced certain third parties and some AGC members regarding business relationships with nonunion contractors and subcontractors.
- The Union claimed this conduct reduced business for unionized firms and impaired the Union’s business activities.
- The Union sought treble damages under § 4 of the Clayton Act, alleging injury to its business or property through lost dues and a diminished ability to perform collective-bargaining functions, asserting the conduct was intended to weaken or destroy the Union.
- The district court dismissed for failure to state a § 4 treble-damages claim; the Ninth Circuit reversed; the Supreme Court granted review.

## Issues

1. Whether the Union was a “person injured in his business or property by reason of anything forbidden in the antitrust laws” under Clayton Act § 4 and therefore could seek treble damages.
2. Whether alleged injuries consisting of lost dues income and weakened bargaining power were sufficiently direct and non-speculative to support antitrust damages standing.
3. Whether the presence of more direct victims and the risk of duplicative recovery required dismissal of the Union’s damages claim.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court reversed the Ninth Circuit.
- The Court held that, on the complaint’s allegations, the Union was not a proper § 4 plaintiff because its claimed injuries were not injuries “by reason of” an antitrust violation within the meaning of § 4.
- The Court concluded that a literal reading of § 4’s broad text was insufficient; courts must evaluate the harm, the alleged wrongdoing, and the relationship between them.
- The Court emphasized the Union was neither a consumer nor a competitor in the market allegedly restrained.
- The Court found the alleged causal chain from the challenged conduct to the Union’s lost dues and impaired bargaining position to be tenuous, speculative, and derivative of harm to others.
- The Court relied on the existence of more direct victims and the resulting risk of duplicative recoveries and difficult damage apportionment as reasons to deny the Union treble-damages standing.
- The Court rejected the view that allegations of intent to harm the Union, without more, establish § 4 standing.

## Legal Principles

- Clayton Act § 4 standing for treble damages is limited; not every party economically affected by an alleged antitrust violation may recover.
- Determining whether a plaintiff may sue under § 4 requires a functional inquiry into the directness of the injury and the plaintiff’s relationship to the allegedly restrained market, not a purely literal reading of statutory text.
- A plaintiff that is neither a consumer nor a competitor in the restrained market faces a strong barrier to § 4 recovery when its injury is consequential or derivative.
- Indirect, remote, or speculative injuries—especially those dependent on harms first incurred by others—do not satisfy § 4’s “by reason of” requirement.
- Courts may deny § 4 standing where allowing suit would create a substantial risk of duplicative recovery, complex apportionment of damages, and where more direct victims can vindicate the antitrust claim.
- Allegations that defendants intended to harm the plaintiff do not, by themselves, cure remoteness or establish the required causal connection for § 4 damages.

## Conclusion

The Court held that the Union could not obtain treble damages under Clayton Act § 4 because its alleged losses were indirect and speculative, occurred outside the restrained market, and would invite duplicative and hard-to-apportion recovery better pursued by more direct victims.


Associated Gen. Contractors of Cal., Inc. v. Cal. State Council of Carpenters, 459 U.S. 519 (1983)