Gatt test

In Gatt Communs., Inc. v. PMC Assocs., L.L.C., 711 F.3d 68 (2d Cir. 2013), the Second Circuit established its test for antitrust injury:

“

First, the party asserting that it has been injured by an illegal anticompetitive practice must identify the practice complained of and the reasons such a practice is or might be anticompetitive. Next, we identify the actual injury the plaintiff alleges . . . [which] requires us to look to the ways in which the plaintiff claims it is in a worse position as a consequence of the defendant's conduct. Finally, we compare the anticompetitive effect of the specific practice at issue to the actual injury the plaintiff alleges. It is not enough for the actual injury to be causally linked to the asserted violation. Rather, in order to establish antitrust injury, the plaintiff must demonstrate that its injury is of the type the antitrust laws were intended to prevent and that flows from that which makes or might make defendants' acts unlawful.

”

Gatt Commc'ns, Inc., 711 F.3d at 76 (alterations, citations, and internal quotation marks omitted).

A subsequent district court decision explains in detail how to apply this test. See Singh v. Am. Racing-Tioga Downs Inc., No. 3:21-CV-0947 (LEK/ML), 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 246306, at *9 (N.D.N.Y. Dec. 28, 2021).

The Gatt decision has been cited 165 times, only 6 of which are with cautionary flags.