## Facts

- Twenty-four recreational boat manufacturers and a buying cooperative sued Brunswick Corporation, a dominant maker of stern drive and inboard marine engines (MerCruiser line).
- Plaintiffs alleged a relevant market for stern drive and inboard marine engines and claimed Brunswick maintained monopoly power through exclusionary practices.
- Challenged practices included market-share/volume discount programs tied to the percentage of a builder’s engine purchases from Brunswick.
- Plaintiffs also challenged long-term supply agreements that allegedly locked in builders and limited rivals’ access.
- Plaintiffs attacked Brunswick’s acquisitions of boat builders (Sea Ray and Bayliner), alleging vertical integration that foreclosed rivals and violated § 7 of the Clayton Act and §§ 1–2 of the Sherman Act.
- Plaintiffs relied substantially on economist Dr. Robert Hall, who used a modeled “competitive benchmark” to opine on liability and to compute damages.
- After a lengthy jury trial, the jury found for plaintiffs on all liability theories and awarded damages later trebled under federal antitrust law; the district court denied Brunswick’s post-trial motions and denied plaintiffs’ request for equitable relief.
- Brunswick counterclaimed under Sherman Act § 1 alleging a boycott and price-fixing conspiracy among the boat builders; the district court entered judgment as a matter of law against Brunswick on that counterclaim.
- Both sides appealed.

## Issues

1. Whether plaintiffs’ expert economic testimony satisfied Rule 702 and *Daubert* and could support findings on antitrust injury, causation, and damages.
2. Whether the evidence was legally sufficient to prove that Brunswick’s discounts, contracts, and acquisitions caused anticompetitive harm rather than harm from lawful competition.
3. Whether Brunswick’s market-share discounts and other practices constituted unreasonable restraints, monopolization/attempted monopolization, or anticompetitive mergers under the Sherman and Clayton Acts.
4. Whether plaintiffs were entitled to equitable relief (including divestiture and injunctions) if liability and injury were established.
5. Whether the district court correctly rejected Brunswick’s Sherman Act § 1 conspiracy counterclaim as a matter of law.

## Decision

- The court reversed the judgment for plaintiffs and remanded with instructions to enter judgment as a matter of law for Brunswick on all of plaintiffs’ antitrust claims.
- The court held Dr. Hall’s model was unreliable and legally insufficient to support the jury’s findings on liability and damages.
- The court concluded plaintiffs failed to prove antitrust injury and causation because their proof did not separate effects of lawful competition from effects of allegedly unlawful conduct.
- The court held the evidentiary record did not support condemning Brunswick’s above-cost discounting and did not show the required exclusionary effects or substantial foreclosure.
- The court held plaintiffs’ evidence regarding the acquisitions did not establish the level of foreclosure or competitive harm required under Clayton Act § 7 or Sherman Act § 2.
- The court affirmed the judgment against Brunswick on its § 1 counterclaim.
- Because Brunswick was entitled to judgment on liability, plaintiffs could not obtain equitable relief.

## Legal Principles

- Expert economic testimony in antitrust cases must satisfy Rule 702/*Daubert* by using reliable methods tied to the market’s actual facts and structure.
- Antitrust damages and causation proof must distinguish injury caused by unlawful exclusion from injury attributable to lawful competition, including product superiority, efficiencies, or non-predatory pricing.
- Above-cost discounts and price reductions are generally treated as lawful competition absent a showing of predation or substantial foreclosure producing harm to competition.
- Vertical acquisitions require proof of likely or actual competitive harm—such as substantial foreclosure or a tendency to lessen competition—not merely increased effectiveness of the integrated firm.
- Judgment as a matter of law is proper where, even viewing the evidence favorably to the verdict, no reasonable jury could find antitrust injury, causation, and damages on a legally sufficient basis.

## Conclusion

The Eighth Circuit set aside a large antitrust verdict because plaintiffs’ case depended on an economic model that did not reliably fit market realities or isolate harm from unlawful conduct; without legally sufficient proof of antitrust injury, causation, and damages, Brunswick was entitled to judgment as a matter of law, and plaintiffs’ requested equitable remedies failed as a result.


Concord Boat Corp. v. Brunswick Corp., 207 F.3d 1039 (8th Cir. 2000)