Abstract
This Note suggests that while Calder jurisdiction fits well with some types of antitrust allegations, the Calder analogy weakens when charges of broad-based anticompetitive conduct collide with the long-arm statutes of particular states. The risk of forcing the analogy too far, of course, is a violation of due process. Part II of this Note reviews the facts and holding of Calder, and some of the key cases that followed it. Part III addresses the question of how the effects test might be different for antitrust complaints. Part IV reviews one type of anticompetitive conduct that seems to place particular strain on the Calder analogy—cartel practices whose effects are attacked in a particular state. Part V balances the due process argument for a narrow reading of Calder with policy considerations supporting a broader application of Calder to antitrust cases.
Recommended Citation
Larry Dougherty,
Does a Cartel Aim Expressly? Trusting Calder Personal Jurisdiction when Antitrust Goes Global,
60 Fla. L. Rev.
915
(2008).
Available at: https://scholarship.law.ufl.edu/flr/vol60/iss4/4
Included in
Antitrust and Trade Regulation Commons, Civil Procedure Commons, Intellectual Property Law Commons, International Law Commons