獨占規制法 違反行爲者를 被告로 하는 間接購買者 損害賠償請求訴訟의 法的 問題

An indirect purchaser action is where a person forced to pay the passed on overcharge seeks to recover as an indirect purchaser against the defendant. Anticompetitive practices damage the economic interests of private parties, especially consumers by eliminating the consumers’ right to choose effectively among competitive products. The question of indirect purchaser’s standing is an important one and will probably have the biggest influence on the development of private competition enforcement. As far as the breadth of the definition of indirect purchaser is concerned, one critical issue is how far indirect purchaser rights of action should extend. Should the right of action be limited to indirect purchasers of only the actual product that was the subject of the anticompetitive activity? Or should it include purchasers of derivative products, for example, other products containing the overcharged product as an ingredient? It is not clear what should count as a derivative product. If all indirect purchasers’ right of actions are recognized, it can be argued that it impairs the efficient and effective private enforcement because of difficulty of bringing damages actions such as calculating and distributing damage. However, it is submitted that for full compensation, it is desirable all indirect purchasers have right to bring actions. With regard to indirect litigation, US case law is crucial because there has been critical case law of indirect purchaser litigation such as Illinois Brick and there have been much discussion of it. Therefore in this chapter, first, I introduce the case and rationaleof indirect purchaser actions in the US and then discuss those in the EU, UK and Korea. For effective private enforcement, it is important to ensure the capacity of indirect purchasers to bring proceedings.