## Facts

- Brunswick Corporation manufactured bowling equipment and, after multiple acquisitions, became the largest operator of bowling centers.
- During an industry downturn in the early 1960s, many bowling centers that had purchased Brunswick equipment on credit defaulted.
- Instead of allowing defaulting centers to close, Brunswick acquired and continued operating many of them, including centers that competed with independently owned bowling centers in several local markets.
- Independent bowling centers sued, alleging Brunswick’s acquisitions violated § 7 of the Clayton Act because they might substantially lessen competition or tend to create a monopoly.
- The plaintiffs sought treble damages under § 4 based on a theory that, if Brunswick had not acquired and operated the failing centers, those centers would have closed and plaintiffs would have gained profits and market share.
- A jury awarded damages, which the district court trebled; the court of appeals approved the damages theory in principle but remanded due to instructional errors.

## Issues

1. Whether a private plaintiff seeking treble damages under Clayton Act § 4 for an alleged § 7 acquisition must prove “antitrust injury,” not merely causation.
2. Whether lost profits attributable to competitors remaining in business (rather than exiting the market) constitute compensable injury under § 4 when the acquisition is alleged to violate § 7.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court reversed the court of appeals’ approval of the plaintiffs’ damages theory.
- The Court held that § 4 recovery for a § 7 violation requires proof of “antitrust injury.”
- The plaintiffs’ claimed injury—lost profits because acquired competitors did not close—did not qualify because it resulted from the continuation of competition, not from a reduction in competition.

## Legal Principles

- To recover treble damages under Clayton Act § 4, a plaintiff must show “antitrust injury”: injury of the type the antitrust laws were intended to prevent and that flows from what makes the defendant’s conduct unlawful.
- The injury must reflect the anticompetitive effect of the violation or of anticompetitive acts made possible by the violation, not merely an injury causally linked to the challenged conduct.
- Profits lost because competition persisted or increased (including profits that would have resulted from rivals’ exit) are not compensable antitrust injuries, even if an acquisition is assumed to violate Clayton Act § 7.

## Conclusion

The Court limited private treble-damages actions for allegedly unlawful acquisitions by requiring proof of antitrust injury tied to competition-reducing effects; competitors cannot recover for profits they would have earned only if rivals had exited the market.


Brunswick Corp. v. Pueblo Bowl-O-Mat, Inc., 429 U.S. 477 (1977)