## Facts

- Independent exhibitors operated the Jackson Park Theater in Chicago.
- Film distributors and affiliated “preferred” exhibitors allegedly conspired to discriminate against independent theaters in the licensing and distribution of feature films.
- The alleged conspiracy operated from before November 1, 1936 through July 28, 1942 and enabled preferred exhibitors to obtain earlier and more profitable runs of films.
- After the theater adopted a double-feature policy around 1937, the exhibitors claimed they could no longer obtain films that had not been previously shown and suffered substantial lost admission receipts.
- To quantify damages for the period July 1937 to July 1942, the exhibitors offered (1) a “yardstick” comparison between their earnings and a comparable competing theater owned by conspirators, and (2) a “before-and-after” comparison between their receipts during the damage period and prior years.

## Issues

1. Whether, after showing antitrust injury, plaintiffs must prove the amount of damages with mathematical precision to submit the case to the jury.
2. Whether “yardstick” and “before-and-after” comparisons provided a sufficient evidentiary basis for a jury to make a just and reasonable estimate of antitrust damages, rather than speculation.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court reversed the court of appeals and reinstated the district court’s judgment on the jury verdict, including treble damages.
- The Court held the evidence permitted a just and reasonable inference of injury and a reasonable estimate of the amount of damages.
- The Court ruled that uncertainty about the precise amount of damages does not bar recovery when the fact of damage is established and the estimate rests on relevant data, not guesswork.

## Legal Principles

- Antitrust plaintiffs who establish the fact of injury need not prove the exact amount of damages with mathematical certainty.
- A jury may make a “just and reasonable estimate” of damages based on relevant data, including comparative methods such as “yardstick” and “before-and-after” analyses, if the comparisons are sufficiently grounded to support inference rather than speculation.
- The law distinguishes uncertainty as to whether damages occurred (which defeats recovery) from uncertainty as to the amount (which does not, once injury is shown).
- A defendant may not avoid liability by relying on measurement uncertainty that flows from the defendant’s unlawful conduct.

## Conclusion

The Court held that once antitrust injury is shown, damages may be awarded on a reasonable estimate derived from relevant comparative evidence, and defendants cannot defeat recovery by demanding exact precision where their conduct has made precision impracticable.


Bigelow v. RKO Radio Pictures, Inc., 327 U.S. 251 (1946)