## Facts

- A consumer plaintiff filed a putative class action on behalf of soft-drink purchasers seeking declaratory and injunctive relief under federal antitrust law.
- The complaint challenged proposed vertical acquisitions in the soft-drink industry, including Coca-Cola’s proposed acquisition of Dr Pepper and PepsiCo’s proposed acquisition of Seven-Up.
- The plaintiff also challenged PepsiCo’s distribution policies that allegedly restricted resale of Pepsi products.
- The plaintiff alleged that, if the acquisitions and distribution practices proceeded, competition would be reduced, consumer choice diminished, and prices increased in affected markets.
- Related actions by competitors and proceedings by the Federal Trade Commission had already been initiated to block or scrutinize the same transactions.
- The alleged consumer harm was prospective and contingent, not based on realized overcharges at the time suit was filed.
- Defendants moved to dismiss for lack of antitrust standing and failure to state a claim; PepsiCo separately moved to dismiss the distribution-policy claims.

## Issues

1. Whether a consumer plaintiff has antitrust standing to seek declaratory and injunctive relief against proposed acquisitions and distribution restraints when the alleged harm is prospective and dependent on future events.
2. Whether alleged consumer injury from the challenged conduct is too remote, indirect, or speculative to qualify as “antitrust injury” and satisfy prudential standing limits.

## Decision

- The court granted the motions to dismiss and dismissed all claims.
- The court held the plaintiff lacked antitrust standing because the alleged injury was too remote and speculative to constitute antitrust injury supporting declaratory or injunctive relief.
- The same standing analysis required dismissal of claims based on PepsiCo’s resale-related distribution restrictions.

## Legal Principles

- Antitrust standing requires “antitrust injury”: harm of the type the antitrust laws aim to prevent and that flows from the aspect of the conduct that allegedly makes it unlawful.
- Courts assess prudential standing factors, including the directness of the alleged injury, the speculative character of the alleged harm, the risk of duplicative recoveries or complex apportionment, and whether more direct victims are better positioned to sue.
- Alleged injuries that depend on a chain of future contingencies—such as consummation of a transaction and later market effects—may be insufficiently concrete to support standing for equitable antitrust relief.
- The existence of more direct challengers (such as competitors) and active government enforcement can weigh against recognizing standing for indirect, prospective consumer claims.

## Conclusion

The court dismissed a consumer class action seeking to enjoin proposed soft-drink acquisitions and distribution restraints because the asserted higher-price and reduced-competition harms were contingent on future events and too indirect and speculative to satisfy federal antitrust standing requirements for declaratory and injunctive relief.


O’Neill v. Coca-Cola Co., 669 F. Supp. 217 (N.D. Ill. 1987)