The 1977 Supreme Court case Brunswick Corp. v. Pueblo Bowl-O-Mat set an important precedent about who can or cannot be a plaintiff in an antitrust suit. Pueblo complained that Brunswick had caused an antitrust injury by saving bowling alleys that would otherwise have closed, thus producing less competition in the market. The Supreme Court found that, although Pueblo may have indeed suffered injury, the injury was not caused by harm covered by the antitrust laws.

Brianna Hills is an Associate at Boies Schiller Flexner LLP.

Visit our website – – to learn more, view all of our content, and connect with us on social media.

* * * * *

As always, the Federalist Society takes no position on particular legal or public policy issues; all expressions of opinion are those of the speaker.