Open Markets Institute argued in its amicus brief on Monday that the justices should do what the high court did in its 2014 decision in Lexmark International v. Static Control Components, a case involving standing to bring false advertising claims under the Lanham Act. There, the brief said, the court found plaintiffs have standing when the claims are within the “zone of interests” protected by the statute and can establish a connection between the violation and the alleged injury.
“The Lexmark Court rejected on textualist grounds both the multi-factor balancing tests that some lower courts had used and the rule that other courts had adopted permitting only competitors to bring Lanham Act suits,” the brief said. “The court should apply the approach articulated in Lexmark to determine antitrust standing too.”