Extract to table

Under this provision, "any person who shall be injured in his business or property by reason of anything forbidden in the antitrust laws may sue therefor in any district court of the United States

and shall recover threefold the damages by him sustained, and the cost of suit, including a reasonable attorney's fee

This inherently counterfactual exercise is typically supported by expert economic testimony, which must itself satisfy the standards of reliability and relevance established by the Supreme Court in Daubert v

Insufficient Nexus Between Refusal and Alleged Harm Even assuming, arguendo, that Northgate's refusal to provide interconnection and colocation access at the fourteen facilities constitutes a violation of Section 2 of the Sherman Act — a proposition that Northgate vigorously disputes — Ridgepoint must still prove that the refusal was the proximate cause of its alleged lost profits, not merely a contributing factor among many

The requirement of antitrust causation is well established: the plaintiff must demonstrate a direct causal link between the defendant's unlawful conduct and the plaintiff's injury, and must isolate the damages attributable to the antitrust violation from damages attributable to other, lawful causes

A reliable but-for analysis must account for all reasonably available alternatives that the plaintiff could have pursued in the absence of the defendant's alleged conduct