In Re Dynamic Random Access Memory (DRAM) Antitrust Litigation

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• recognizing that indirect purchaser suits are permitted in Arizona, Kansas, Maine, Michigan, Minnesota Mississippi, Nebraska, Nevada, New Mexico, North Carolina, North Dakota, South Dakota, and Wisconsin
• holding that “plaintiffs here proceeding under the Cartwright Act are required to satisfy general antitrust standing requirements enunciated by the Supreme Court in AGC, and embraced by the Ninth Circuit in Knevelbaard”
• noting that statute is aimed in part at “false, or misleading statements and representations in connection with goods, services and businesses”
• finding \a single statement\ alleging that \defendants' publicly provided pre-textual and false justifications regarding their price increases' ....insufficient\ to qualify as \deceptive\ conduct under the [Utah] Consumer Sales Practice Act.
• dismissing antitrust claims asserted by plaintiffs who were “participants in separate, albeit related, markets”
• directness requirement not met where the “complaint sets forth no allegations that, within the final purchase price of a given product purchased by plaintiffs for ‘end use,’ the ultimate cost of DRAM is somehow directly traceable or distinguishable”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).