In the United States, antitrust litigation is not solely a matter of government concern. In fact, antitrust enforcement is a tool strategically used by private parties as part of business operations in the United States. By increasing litigation costs, potential damages, risk of suit, and regulatory oversight costs, antitrust litigation can be an impediment on businesses. Further, fear of litigation and associated costs stifles new product development and production in the United States by creating a high barrier to entry in the form of regulatory costs and significant risk of liability. With the number of antitrust cases rising annually, the negative impact on businesses should be of concern for enforcers especially as the number of private claims grows. Properly applied antitrust laws allow both government and private parties the ability to stop or hinder abuses of market power by participants seeking anticompetitive advantages.
A meritorious use of antitrust law by private parties may entail a situation where a cartel of competitors in an industry work together to fix prices, control supplies, and divide market share. In doing so the cartel blocks access to necessary resources for new entrants to the market; through strategic distribution, wholesale, and manufacturing contracts the cartel is able to raise barriers to entry so high that a new entrant would be unable to enter the market or would be unable to effectively compete upon entry. Proper application of antitrust laws by a private party would allow for recourse against the cartel participants and would promote competition in the industry by lowering barriers to entry for new market participants. However, due to the staggering effects that antitrust litigation can have, private parties may also abuse the laws in order to subvert competition.
According to an article published by the International Bar Association in 2009, it was noted how “broad procedural and substantive rules providing incentives to litigation produce economic harm” to companies and employees, specifically emphasizing the role played by antitrust cases. The liability is of such a drastic nature that liability policy premiums “increase (s) of 300 or more percent are not uncommon for [European] companies with a US [stock] listing.” In 2016 alone, there were 853 antitrust cases heard in federal courts, a majority of which were brought by private actors. This is an increase of 10.9 percent from 2015 and a 21 percent increase from 2012, where 702 antitrust cases were filed in federal court alone.  As of 2007, the average duration of an antitrust case, from filing to completion, was 24.6 months. Such prolonged cases prove expensive for defendants and can create a disincentive to enter the United States Market as the frequency of them increases.
A poignant example of prolonged litigation is the LIBOR-Based Financial Instruments Antitrust Litigation. With lawsuits dating back to 2007, the private litigation against numerous banks is still in the process of closing, over a decade later. Collectively, the defendant organizations have paid hundreds of millions and potentially billions of dollars to end litigation, with firms like Citigroup paying individual settlements with private litigants upwards of $100 million. The use of private antitrust litigation may be abused by private litigant as a strategic and anti-competitive tool.
Although Antitrust laws are meant to be used to uphold the competitive integrity of US Markets, the laws may also be used by private litigants for anti-competitive ends. This specifically comes into play where non-dominant firms in competitive markets utilize antitrust laws to sue dominant firms. According to a United State Department of Justice paper on the procompetitive and anticompetitive nature of private antitrust litigation, antitrust suits brought by non-dominant firms in competitive markets are more likely to constitute abuses of the law rather than true claims of anticompetitive activity. Further, the use of private antitrust litigation can be highly profitable for nefarious plaintiffs; for instance, not only is the risk of long, complex, and the costly litigation a major deterrent for defendants but it may often lead to profitable settlements for the plaintiffs. In addition to profitable settlements, plaintiffs in private antitrust actions may also be rewarded with easier competition due to fear by defendants of copy-cat lawsuits, this is especially true after a successful government claims. Overall, even where claims may have merit private parties may be less likely to use antitrust laws to impede anticompetitive behavior than use it for their own profit.
Antitrust lawsuits are not only costly because of settlements, litigation costs, and other directly monetary outputs; instead, antitrust may also take a toll on opportunity and operational costs ultimately stifling innovation and go-to-market strategies. A prime example is the strategic use of antitrust laws by Digital Equipment Corp. against Intel in 1997. As illustrated in the Department of Justice’s article “The Strategic Abuse of the Antitrust Laws”, a well-timed antitrust allegation can be effective and profitable for the aggressing party. Although suit was never brought, the prospect of a large scale antitrust battle led to a $700 million settlement deal between Digital and Intel, ending months of patent litigation. The settlement came just after a press release by Digital claiming that Intel was bolstering a monopoly in high power micro processing chips, at the same time the FTC began questioning Intel’s dominance in the chip and semi-conductor market.
In a highly competitive market Digital was able to nearly stop Intel in its tracks by threatening antitrust litigation and utilizing a Public Relations campaign to draw attention to the company’s market power, founded upon verifiable anticompetitive activity or not. The benefits of this strategy for Digital were not limited to a cash settlement, although the settlement was highly profitable more significant gains were made. In the settlement agreement it was stipulated that Digital would be guaranteed discounts on Intel Pentium chips (used in Digital’s computer products instead of its own competing chips), and continued access to the same Intel Pentium chips. Digital’s personal computers, which incorporated Intel chips, represented nearly 25% of its total revenues. By strategically threatening antitrust litigation Digital was able to slow Intel’s growing and usurping dominance in the high-power chip market, where both parties were competing. In doing so Digital added to its cash reserves while forcing Intel to acquire its chip technology.  Ultimately the FTC investigation lead to the finding that Intel had withheld information in the patent litigation process, but Digital’s threat antitrust suit forced a settlement exclusive to them and not benefitting other patent litigants against Intel.
Although private parties may, and often do, have a vested interest in utilizing antitrust law to stop anticompetitive behavior strategic uses such as Digital’s are viewed more as abuses. This is because they ultimately do not better competition in the market as a whole, and instead are highly profitable for only the aggressing party. Strategic uses of antitrust such as this appear problematic for businesses. Although they strong arm parties into dealing together, they also hinder development of new products and allow intelligent abusers to systematically restrain their competitors that may otherwise be outperforming other market participants. This may be done regardless of the veracity of their claim. Ultimately, it is the consumer that pays in the form of higher prices, slowed product development and potentially inferior products.
Overall, antitrust litigation is meant to shield against anticompetitive behavior and promote competition, but in a legal system where private parties may use antitrust laws as swords that yield treble damages, the potential for negative effects on business operations may be high. As the number of lawsuits under antitrust laws continues to grow, it is important to watch out for the potential stifling of innovation and increased costs of business operations in the United States that may come with it. Importantly, private actors may often be the best proponents of markets and strategic application of antitrust laws most beneficial to competition; however, the contrary is the potential for strategic abuse that allows continued anticompetitive behavior while aggressing firms profit. Further, insuring that private litigants are not using the law in an anticompetitive and abusive manner is a key component in keeping the antitrust laws in the United States from dis-incentivizing growth and beneficially competitive behavior.