United Biologics, LLC, dba United Allergy Services v. Amerigroup Tennessee, Inc., dba Amerigroup Community Care, et al.

Petitioner United Allergy Services (“UAS”) partners with primary care physicians around the country to provide allergy testing and immunotherapy services. When UAS entered the market in 2009, it was an immediate success in large part because it met a massive unsatisfied demand. But a group of allergists and health insurers did not take kindly to that market disruption. Over the course of several years, respondents conspired with each other and with other insurance companies to oust petitioner from the market by coercing UAS’s customers to cut ties with UAS. The Sixth Circuit acknowledged that UAS was the target of a scheme by market incumbents to drive it from the market. Yet the court nonetheless held that Illinois Brick Co. v. Illinois, 431 U.S. 720 (1977), barred UAS from seeking lost-profit damages because UAS’s customers were more immediate victims. As Judge Bush recognized, that decision squarely conflicts with decisions from other circuits limiting Illinois Brick to cases where multiple plaintiffs seek to recover a single overcharge. In those circuits, Illinois Brick has no application where the actual and intended victim of a group boycott seeks to recover lost-profit damages. The question presented is: Whether Illinois Brick Co. v. Illinois, 431 U.S. 720 (1977), bars the intended and actual target of a group boycott from recovering lost-profit damages when market incumbents band together to coerce the target’s customers to stop doing business with the target.