Brunswick Corp. v. Pueblo Bowl-O-Mat, Inc.

Background

A major manufacturer of bowling equipment bought and ran dozens of failing bowling centers when those centers’ equipment could not be resold. Three bowling centers owned by a competing chain sued, arguing those purchases unlawfully lessened competition and seeking treble (triple) damages equal to profits they said they would have earned if the acquired centers had closed.

Reasoning

The Court explained that the part of the law that blocks potentially harmful mergers is preventive, while the part that awards treble damages is remedial and compensates actual injury. The Court said private plaintiffs cannot recover simply because a rival was kept in business; they must prove "antitrust injury" — the kind of harm the antitrust laws were meant to prevent and that flows from the defendants’ anticompetitive acts. Because the plaintiffs’ damages theory measured only lost windfall profits from concentration rather than harm tied to anticompetitive conduct, their proof did not show cognizable antitrust injury.

Real world impact

The ruling raises the proof needed to win treble damages after acquisitions: plaintiffs must tie lost profits to anticompetitive effects or predatory acts, not merely to the fact that competitors remained. In this case, the Court found plaintiffs failed to prove such damages and entered judgment for the manufacturer on the damages claim. Plaintiffs may still seek equitable relief (an injunction) on remand if they can show harm to competition.