Protection Against Foreign Anticompetitive Automotive Supply Chain Practices Affecting U.S. Activities

04 August 2014 Dashboard Insights Blog

Automotive industry participants may face increased costs and risk from wholly foreign anticompetitive activities far upstream in their global supply chain. Antitrust laws, like the Sherman Act, protect American markets from anticompetitive practices. But, under the Foreign Trade Antitrust Improvements Act (“FTAIA”), American antitrust laws only reach foreign conduct in specific circumstances. For example, an anticompetitive act committed abroad must, among other things, “directly” affect U.S. domestic, import, or certain export activities and the effect must give rise to a Sherman Act claim before U.S. courts may address it. An in-depth look at the cases discussed below can be found in Foley’s Antitrust newsletter but a quick overview is provided in this blog.

Two federal appellate courts recently addressed what it means to “directly” affect U.S. activities and give rise to a Sherman Act claim in the framework of a global supply chain. In one case before the Seventh Circuit, a manufacturer alleged that a foreign cartel fixed the price of a certain component part. Such a practice typically gives rise to a federal antitrust claim. But in this case, the alleged price fixers were not selling the products in the U.S. or to a U.S. company. Instead, the alleged price fixers sold the components abroad to foreign subsidiaries of a U.S. company. The subsidiaries incorporated the component into the end product while manufacturing abroad. Then, the subsidiaries imported many of the end products for sale in the United States. The court decided that the injuries suffered by the manufacturer were too indirect to support a claim under the Sherman Act. This ruling suggests that an injury at one level in the foreign supply chain does not create a “direct” effect in U.S. activity.

Notably, the Seventh Circuit will hear the same case again on rehearing. After the court requested and received the United States’ position on the issues, it agreed to reconsider its decision. The United States argued that the manufacturer should be allowed to prove the link between its injuries and the cartel’s effect on U.S. commerce. Still, there is no certainty that the court will deviate from its previous decision.

Another circuit court did not read the FTAIA as narrowly as the Seventh. In a case before the Second Circuit, another manufacturer sued co-members of an international standard-setting organization developing a new generation of a component part in an everyday product. The manufacturer claimed that its co-members refused to provide the manufacturer with a license even though the organization’s rules required the license be given, which would cause prices to rise worldwide, including in the United States. In this case, the court explained that anticompetitive injuries can be recoverable through multi-layered supply chains. Nevertheless, the Second Circuit decided that there was no Sherman Act claim because the plaintiff’s injuries occurred overseas. The foreign anticompetitive conduct did not cause, directly or indirectly, a domestic injury to the plaintiff. In other words, the true injury to the plaintiff was the denial of the license abroad, not the effects of that act.

These decisions impact the reach of U.S. antitrust laws relative foreign conduct by defining a “direct” effect under the FTAIA. They may affect antitrust claims that may be brought by U.S. automotive industry participants and antitrust defenses that may be available to foreign automotive industry suppliers upstream in the global supply chain. Of course, the Supreme Court could take up this issue in the future. Until then, circuit courts will have to determine if a company can seek redress for injuries, in U.S. courts, based on foreign anticompetitive conduct in the global supply chain.

A version of this article appeared first on Foley’s Manufacturing Industry Advisor blog.

This blog is made available by Foley & Lardner LLP (“Foley” or “the Firm”) for informational purposes only. It is not meant to convey the Firm’s legal position on behalf of any client, nor is it intended to convey specific legal advice. Any opinions expressed in this article do not necessarily reflect the views of Foley & Lardner LLP, its partners, or its clients. Accordingly, do not act upon this information without seeking counsel from a licensed attorney. This blog is not intended to create, and receipt of it does not constitute, an attorney-client relationship. Communicating with Foley through this website by email, blog post, or otherwise, does not create an attorney-client relationship for any legal matter. Therefore, any communication or material you transmit to Foley through this blog, whether by email, blog post or any other manner, will not be treated as confidential or proprietary. The information on this blog is published “AS IS” and is not guaranteed to be complete, accurate, and or up-to-date. Foley makes no representations or warranties of any kind, express or implied, as to the operation or content of the site. Foley expressly disclaims all other guarantees, warranties, conditions and representations of any kind, either express or implied, whether arising under any statute, law, commercial use or otherwise, including implied warranties of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. In no event shall Foley or any of its partners, officers, employees, agents or affiliates be liable, directly or indirectly, under any theory of law (contract, tort, negligence or otherwise), to you or anyone else, for any claims, losses or damages, direct, indirect special, incidental, punitive or consequential, resulting from or occasioned by the creation, use of or reliance on this site (including information and other content) or any third party websites or the information, resources or material accessed through any such websites. In some jurisdictions, the contents of this blog may be considered Attorney Advertising. If applicable, please note that prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Photographs are for dramatization purposes only and may include models. Likenesses do not necessarily imply current client, partnership or employee status.

Related Services