## Facts

- Dedication & Everlasting Love to Animals (D.E.L.T.A. Rescue), a California nonprofit, rescued and sheltered animals and funded its operations primarily through public donations solicited by direct-mail.
- The Humane Society of the United States, a nonprofit based in Washington, D.C., pursued animal-welfare goals and similarly solicited public donations through direct-mail.
- D.E.L.T.A. alleged the organizations competed nationwide for charitable donations and that fundraising had interstate effects through nationwide solicitation and media.
- D.E.L.T.A. alleged the Humane Society sought to harm D.E.L.T.A.’s fundraising and operations by encouraging the California Attorney General to pursue disciplinary action against D.E.L.T.A. and by inducing service providers to withhold or condition services.
- D.E.L.T.A. claimed it lost more than $100 million in donations and sought treble damages under Sherman Act §§ 1 and 2.

## Issues

1. Whether nonprofit charitable fundraising and related advocacy constitute “trade or commerce” under Sherman Act §§ 1 and 2.
2. Whether alleged interference with a rival charity’s fundraising (including efforts to influence government officials and third parties) can support claims for restraint of trade or attempted monopolization.
3. Whether a charity’s alleged loss of donations, without a showing of harm to competition in a cognizable commercial market, is an “antitrust injury.”

## Decision

- The Ninth Circuit affirmed summary judgment for the Humane Society.
- The court held that the nonprofit charitable fundraising at issue was not “trade or commerce” within the meaning of the Sherman Act.
- The court concluded D.E.L.T.A. failed to establish a cognizable antitrust injury because the alleged harm was loss of donations to one organization rather than harm to competition in a commercial market.
- Because the challenged conduct fell outside the Sherman Act’s commercial scope as presented, D.E.L.T.A.’s §§ 1 and 2 claims could not proceed.

## Legal Principles

- Sherman Act liability requires conduct occurring in “trade or commerce”; not all money-related activity qualifies, particularly where the activity consists of soliciting voluntary charitable contributions rather than exchanging goods or services in a commercial market.
- Antitrust law protects competition, not a particular competitor’s revenue; reduced donations to one nonprofit, standing alone, does not constitute antitrust injury.
- Nonprofit status does not categorically exempt an entity from antitrust scrutiny, but the Sherman Act’s reach depends on whether the challenged conduct is commercial in nature.
- Efforts to influence government action against an opposing nonprofit, when tied to charitable advocacy and fundraising rather than commercial market behavior, do not by themselves create a Sherman Act claim absent commercial “trade or commerce” and a cognizable antitrust injury.

## Conclusion

The Ninth Circuit held that competition between nonprofits for charitable donations, as pleaded here, is not “trade or commerce” under the Sherman Act and that a claimed loss of donations to one charity is not an antitrust injury; summary judgment for the Humane Society was affirmed.


Dedication & Everlasting Love to Animals v. Humane Soc’y of the U.S., Inc., 50 F.3d 710 (9th Cir. 1995)