On Aug. 21, 2024, in In re Amitiza Antitrust Litig., the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts dismissed a c.93A claim brought by a putative class of indirect purchasers of certain pharmaceuticals for lack of standing under the Illinois Brick indirect purchaser bar. Under the Illinois Brick doctrine, an indirect purchaser, i.e., someone who purchases a product somewhere down the supply chain, does not have standing to bring federal antitrust claims.

In considering the Massachusetts consumer protection claims, the court noted that an indirect purchaser was also barred from bringing claims under the Massachusetts Antitrust Act and against persons engaged in the conduct of any trade or commerce under Mass. Gen. Laws. Ch. 93A, Section 11.

The context of the transaction matters because a consumer would not be similarly barred under Section 9. Here, the indirect purchaser did not allege that it failed to profit from the pharmaceutical reimbursement, but affirmatively alleged that the class was motivated by “business considerations.” As such, the court recommended dismissal of the Massachusetts consumer protection claims.