The Gate Before the Merits
Antitrust Standing and Environmental Grievances in the United States, the United Kingdom and India
DOI :
https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.23503319Mots-clés :
antitrust standing, antitrust injury, competition law, environmental harm, climate litigation, private enforcement, comparative lawRésumé
Competition law hands private litigants treble damages in some systems, binding infringement findings in others, and a ready-made liability theory against dominant firms. Environmental claimants have noticed. This paper asks how far the rules on who may sue stop a private plaintiff from using antitrust to remedy environmental and climate harm that is tied to market power. It reads the United States, the United Kingdom and India side by side, with short references to the European Union, Germany and the Netherlands. The argument is that standing doctrine excludes purely environmental injury almost completely, because every system measures harm through the market and treats ecological loss as something that happens outside it. The same doctrine leaves a real opening for plaintiffs who can show that collusion or dominance raised their prices, lowered the quality of what they bought or suppressed cleaner technology. The United States closes the door in layers. The United Kingdom opens it wide and then narrows the corridor behind it. India invites almost anyone to start a complaint but gives few of them anything to collect. The paper closes by defending the current gatekeeping and proposing better coordination between competition and environmental forums as the sounder reform.
Téléchargements
Références
American Electric Power Co Inc v Connecticut 564 US 410 (2011)
Apple Inc v Pepper 587 US 273 (2019)
Associated General Contractors of California Inc v California State Council of Carpenters 459 US 519 (1983)
Atlantic Richfield Co v USA Petroleum Co 495 US 328 (1990)
Brown Shoe Co v United States 370 US 294 (1962)
Brunswick Corp v Pueblo Bowl-O-Mat Inc 429 US 477 (1977)
California v ARC America Corp 490 US 93 (1989)
Cargill Inc v Monfort of Colorado Inc 479 US 104 (1986)
Clapper v Amnesty International USA 568 US 398 (2013)
Eastern Railroad Presidents Conference v Noerr Motor Freight Inc 365 US 127 (1961)
Friends of the Earth Inc v Laidlaw Environmental Services (TOC) Inc 528 US 167 (2000)
Hanover Shoe Inc v United Shoe Machinery Corp 392 US 481 (1968)
Hawaii v Standard Oil Co of California 405 US 251 (1972)
Illinois Brick Co v Illinois 431 US 720 (1977)
In re German Automotive Manufacturers Antitrust Litigation, 497 F Supp 3d 745 (ND Cal 2020)
Juliana v United States 947 F3d 1159 (9th Cir 2020)
Lexmark International Inc v Static Control Components Inc 572 US 118 (2014)
Lujan v Defenders of Wildlife 504 US 555 (1992)
Massachusetts v EPA 549 US 497 (2007)
National Collegiate Athletic Association v Alston 594 US 69 (2021)
National Society of Professional Engineers v United States 435 US 679 (1978)
Native Village of Kivalina v ExxonMobil Corp 696 F3d 849 (9th Cir 2012)
Reiter v Sonotone Corp 442 US 330 (1979)
Sierra Club v Morton 405 US 727 (1972)
Spokeo Inc v Robins 578 US 330 (2016)
State of Texas v BlackRock, Inc., No 6:24-cv-437-JDK (ED Tex 1 August 2025)
TransUnion LLC v Ramirez 594 US 413 (2021)
United States v Grinnell Corp 384 US 563 (1966)
Washington Environmental Council v Bellon 732 F3d 1131 (9th Cir 2013)
Table of Cases: United Kingdom
Lungowe v Vedanta Resources plc [2019] UKSC 20
Merricks v Mastercard Inc [2020] UKSC 51
Okpabi v Royal Dutch Shell plc [2021] UKSC 3
R (Friends of the Earth Ltd) v Heathrow Airport Ltd [2020] UKSC 52
R v Inspectorate of Pollution, ex p Greenpeace Ltd (No 2) [1994] 4 All ER 329
R v Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, ex p World Development Movement Ltd [1995] 1 WLR 386
Sainsbury’s Supermarkets Ltd v Visa Europe Services LLC [2020] UKSC 24
Table of Cases: European Union
Case C-453/99 Courage Ltd v Bernard Crehan [2001] ECR I-6297
Joined Cases C-295/04 to C-298/04 Vincenzo Manfredi v Lloyd Adriatico Assicurazioni SpA [2006] ECR I-6619
Table of Cases: India
Bandhua Mukti Morcha v Union of India (1984) 3 SCC 161
Bharti Airtel Ltd v Union of India (2015) 12 SCC 1
Indian Council for Enviro-Legal Action v Union of India (1996) 3 SCC 212
MC Mehta v Union of India (1987) 1 SCC 395
MK Ranjitsinh v Union of India 2024 INSC 280
Rural Litigation and Entitlement Kendra v State of UP (1985) 2 SCC 431
Samir Agrawal v Competition Commission of India 2020 SCC OnLine SC 1024
SP Gupta v President of India 1981 Supp SCC 87
Subhash Kumar v State of Bihar (1991) 1 SCC 598
Vellore Citizens’ Welfare Forum v Union of India (1996) 5 SCC 647
Table of Cases: Netherlands
Milieudefensie v Royal Dutch Shell plc, Rechtbank Den Haag, 26 May 2021, ECLI:NL:RBDHA:2021:5339
Legislation and treaties: United States
Clayton Act 1914, 15 USC §§ 15, 15c, 16, 26
Clean Air Act 1970, 42 USC § 7604
Federal Water Pollution Control Act (Clean Water Act) 1972, 33 USC § 1365
Hart-Scott-Rodino Antitrust Improvements Act 1976, 15 USC § 18a
Sherman Act 1890, 15 USC §§ 1–2
Legislation and treaties: United Kingdom
Competition Act 1998
Competition Appeal Tribunal Rules 2015 (SI 2015/1648)
Consumer Rights Act 2015
Senior Courts Act 1981
Legislation and treaties: India
Competition Act 2002
Competition (Amendment) Act 2023
Constitution of India 1950
Finance Act 2017
National Green Tribunal Act 2010
Legislation and treaties: European Union and international
Directive 2014/104/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 November 2014 on certain rules governing actions for damages under national law for infringements of the competition law provisions of the Member States and of the European Union [2014] OJ L349/1
Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union
Convention on Access to Information, Public Participation in Decision-Making and Access to Justice in Environmental Matters (adopted 25 June 1998, entered into force 30 October 2001) 2161 UNTS 447
Legislation: Germany and the Netherlands
Burgerlijk Wetboek (Netherlands), Book 3, art 305a
Gesetz gegen Wettbewerbsbeschränkungen (Germany), ss 33, 33a, 33b
Official decisions, guidance and reports
Authority for Consumers and Markets (ACM), Analysis of the sustainability arrangements concerning the ‘Chicken of Tomorrow’ (26 January 2015)
Case AT.40178 Car Emissions (Commission Decision, 8 July 2021)
Commission, Guidelines on the applicability of Article 101 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union to horizontal co-operation agreements [2023] OJ C259/1
Competition and Markets Authority, Guidance on the application of the Chapter I prohibition in the Competition Act 1998 to environmental sustainability agreements (12 October 2023)
Law Commission of India, 186th Report on Proposal to Constitute Environment Courts (2003)
Books
Hovenkamp H, Federal Antitrust Policy: The Law of Competition and Its Practice (6th edn, West Academic 2020)
Nowag J, Environmental Integration in Competition and Free-Movement Laws (OUP 2016)
Whish R and Bailey D, Competition Law (11th edn, OUP 2024)
Journal articles
Holmes S, ‘Climate Change, Sustainability, and Competition Law’ (2020) 8 Journal of Antitrust Enforcement 354
Monti G, ‘Four Options for a Greener Competition Law’ (2020) 11 Journal of European Competition Law & Practice 124
Stucke ME, ‘Reconsidering Antitrust’s Goals’ (2012) 53 Boston College Law Review 551
Sunstein CR, ‘What’s Standing After Lujan? Of Citizen Suits, “Injuries,” and Article III’ (1992) 91 Michigan Law Review 163
Téléchargements
Publiée
Déclaration de disponibilité des données
No new data were generated or analysed for this article. It is a doctrinal and comparative study based on publicly available statutes, judgments, regulatory guidance and published scholarship, all of which are cited in the footnotes.
Numéro
Rubrique
URN
Licence
Merci de créditer les auteurs lors de toute citation : Oxford Law Review (2026)

Ce travail est disponible sous la licence Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International .
Content published by Oxford Law Review is made available subject to the copyright and licensing terms applicable to the individual article.
Unless otherwise stated on the article page, the following terms apply:
1. Copyright
Copyright in published articles remains subject to the rights and terms specified for the respective publication. Authors and users should respect all applicable copyright and intellectual property laws.
2. Use of Published Material
Published articles may be accessed, read, cited and referenced for legitimate scholarly, educational and research purposes, subject to applicable copyright and licensing restrictions.
3. Reproduction
Reproduction, redistribution, adaptation or commercial use of published material is permitted only where expressly authorised by the applicable licence or by the relevant copyright holder.
4. Citation and Attribution
Any permitted use of material published by Oxford Law Review must provide appropriate bibliographic attribution, including the author, article title, Journal name and publication details, and a persistent link to the original article where available.
5. Third-Party Material
Material belonging to third parties, including photographs, illustrations, tables, datasets or other copyrighted content, may be subject to separate copyright or licensing conditions. Users are responsible for obtaining any permission required for such use.
6. Author Rights
Authors retain such rights as are provided under the applicable publication and licensing agreement. The specific rights applicable to each article are indicated with the published work where appropriate.
7. Changes to Licensing Terms
Oxford Law Review may update its licensing terms from time to time. The terms applicable to a published article will be those stated with or otherwise governing that article.
For the licensing status of a particular article, please refer to the licence information displayed on its publication page.