United States: The Seventh Circuit Shows Steely Resolve In Scrapping A Putative Class Of Indirect Purchasers

Last Updated: February 15 2019
Article by Mark Weiss

On September 6, 2018, Chief Judge Diane Wood, writing for a three-judge panel of the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals (the "Court"), affirmed the dismissal of a putative class action by indirect purchaser plaintiffs ("IPPs") alleging that seven US steel producers conspired to fix prices on the sale of steel products in the United States.1 The Seventh Circuit found the district court was correct in dismissing the complaint on two independent grounds (1) it was barred by the statute of limitations; and (2) the plaintiffs failed to demonstrate a proximate causal link between the alleged conspiracy and the alleged damages suffered by indirect purchasers of a wide variety of products containing steel.

The MDL initially involved two putative classes: a direct purchaser class and an indirect purchaser class. The district court deferred considering class certification of the IPP class pending its decision on certification of the direct purchaser class. The direct purchasers defined their proposed class as purchasers of the following steel products:

[A]ll products derived from raw steel ... including, but not limited to, steel sheet and coil products; galvanized sheet and other galvanized and/or coated steel products; tin mill products; steel slabs and plates; steel beams, blooms, rails, and other structural shapes; steel billets, bars, and rods; steel pipe and other tubular products; and all other products derived from raw steel.2

The district court certified this class "for the sole purpose of determining whether defendants engaged in a conspiracy in violation of federal antitrust laws" but denied class certification with regards to impact and damages.3 The direct purchaser class reached a settlement shortly thereafter.

In its original complaint, the sole IPP plaintiff sought to define the following class – similar to the direct purchaser class – of "consumer steel products" including:

[A]ny consumer steel product including but not limited to produced flat steel sheets and coils; galvanized steel products; tin mill products; steel plates; steel beams, rails and other structural shapes; steel bars and rods; steel wire and wire rod; steel pipes and other tubular products; and a variety of other products derived from raw steel.4

Shortly after certification of the direct purchaser class, defendants moved to dismiss the IPPs' complaint. Instead of responding, the IPPs filed an amended complaint, which significantly transformed their claim and added new plaintiffs. The amended complaint also dropped the federal antitrust claims and instead relied on 21 state antitrust statutes, as well as state consumer protection and unjust enrichment laws. Importantly, the IPPs broadened their product definition to include a number of manufactured products containing steel, including:

[A]ny consumer steel product for end use and not for resale, including clothes washers, clothes dryers, refrigerators, freezers, dishwashers, microwave ovens[,] regular ovens, automobiles, semi-tractor trailers, farm and construction equipment, room air conditioner units, hot water heaters, snow blowers, barbeque grills, lawn mowers, and reinforcing bars used in patios, driveways, swimming pools and sidewalks.5

Defendants again moved to dismiss, claiming the plaintiffs' injuries were too remote from the alleged offense and that plaintiffs had alleged a new set of injuries that were now barred by the statute of limitations. A district court in the Northern District of Illinois agreed, granting the motion to dismiss and setting up this appeal.

Addressing the statute of limitations, the Seventh Circuit noted that plaintiffs did not contest that their claims were now outside of the relevant limitations period. The original claim was filed in 2008 and the longest period from any state antitrust statute – six years – barred any claim filed after 2014. Accordingly, the IPPs relied on tolling or relation back arguments. To relate back, plaintiffs needed to show that their claim, under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15, "arose out of the conduct, transaction, or occurrence set out—or attempted to be set out—in the original pleading."6 Where the IPPs' original complaint focused on purchases of steel pipes, tubing, and sheet from distributors and resellers, their new complaint included dozens of household and commercial products making virtually every American consumer and business a putative class member. Plaintiffs argued that their original product definition included "any consumer steel product" but the Court found that the IPPs' original complaint was limited to products manufactured at steel mills, rather than a host of downstream consumer and industrial products where steel was merely an input. Thus, the Court determined the original definition was insufficient to put defendants on notice of this wider claim. That the IPPs had issued thirdparty subpoenas to consumer product sellers Whirlpool and John Deere was similarly insufficient to put defendants on notice that the IPP claims encompassed all these manufactured end products. While defendants complained about this overbroad discovery in their original motion to dismiss, the Court was not persuaded that defendants had ever been properly notified or – as IPPs suggested – were aware of this broader claim "all along."7 Thus, relation back was unavailable under Rule 15.

The Court also quickly dispensed with tolling arguments once it concluded that the new named plaintiffs were not in fact members of the class proposed in the original complaint. Accordingly, under the Supreme Court's American Pipe and China Agritech decisions, there was no suspension of the statute of limitations.8

Although its statute of limitations ruling was dispositive, the Seventh Circuit decided to also address the district court's alternative ruling that the IPPs failed to establish proximate causation because they did not prove a direct relation between the plaintiff's alleged injury and the defendant's behavior. The IPPs' theory of recovery relied on tracing an overcharge allegedly implemented by steel manufacturers through to end-use consumers for a wide variety of "complex products, all of which have gone through numerous manufacturing alterations and lines of distribution." "In many of these products," the Court found, "steel is not even a primary or necessary ingredient."9 With a twinge of irony, the Court noted that the IPPs' original complaint based on steel rods and similar items purchased indirectly would satisfy proximate causation requirements under "many if not all Illinois Brick repealer" statutes but that the connection between the alleged overcharge and the complex, manufactured endproducts in the amended complaint was simply too remote. In sum, the IPPs needed to show that "the alleged injury is still fairly traceable to the defendant steel manufacturers" but, the Seventh Circuit found, the IPPs had no reasonable means of tracing the injury through "complex supply and production chains."10

The facts of the case read like a law school issue-spotter, implicating numerous civil procedure concepts, including: proximate causation, statutes of limitations, relation back, tolling, standing, the distinction between federal and state statutes adjudicated in federal court, as well as the merits of a good old-fashioned price-fixing antitrust case. The takeaways from this decision are that courts will continue to give appropriate scrutiny both to amended pleadings and new parties after the statute of limitations has run. Amendments will not automatically relate back, particularly when the nature of the underlying claim has changed. Further, at least in the Seventh Circuit, indirect purchaser claims will face skepticism when they do not draw a clear line of traceable causation between their alleged injury and the underlying violation. More generally, the decision shows the difficulty in expanding claims – especially a full decade after an original complaint is filed. Courts will often view this expansion with skepticism, often finding that it appears strategic or unfair.

Defense counsel can use this decision as a blueprint for vigorously defending against amended complaints, especially when those amendments change the nature of the injury and expand the class of plaintiffs. Furthermore, claims are susceptible to proximate causation defenses when the underlying violation is too far removed from the injury – certainly in antitrust cases – by more than one directly traceable level of commerce or by other intervening factors. This decision also has important implications beyond the motion to dismiss stage, most notably in determining whether class certification is appropriate in indirect purchaser cases where the allegedly price-fixed products are transformed at various points and in different ways in the stream of commerce. While federal courts have adopted a fairly liberal standard for allowing amended pleadings to relate back, adding new claims that expand cases from a limited set of purchasers to virtually every American and American business is a (steel) bridge too far.


1 See Supreme Auto Transp., LLC v. Arcelor Mittal USA, Inc., 902 F.3d 735 (7th Cir. 2018).

2 Id. at 739.

3 Id.

4 Id. at 740.

5 Id.

6 Id. at 741.

7 Id. at 742.

8 Id.

9 Id. at 744.

10 Id.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

To print this article, all you need is to be registered on Mondaq.com.

Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.

In association with
Related Topics
Related Articles
Related Video
Up-coming Events Search
Font Size:
Mondaq on Twitter
Mondaq Free Registration
Gain access to Mondaq global archive of over 375,000 articles covering 200 countries with a personalised News Alert and automatic login on this device.
Mondaq News Alert (some suggested topics and region)
Select Topics
Registration (please scroll down to set your data preferences)

Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including your content preferences, for three primary purposes (full details of Mondaq’s use of your personal data can be found in our Privacy and Cookies Notice):

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting to show content ("Content") relevant to your interests.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, news alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our content providers ("Contributors") who contribute Content for free for your use.

Mondaq hopes that our registered users will support us in maintaining our free to view business model by consenting to our use of your personal data as described below.

Mondaq has a "free to view" business model. Our services are paid for by Contributors in exchange for Mondaq providing them with access to information about who accesses their content. Once personal data is transferred to our Contributors they become a data controller of this personal data. They use it to measure the response that their articles are receiving, as a form of market research. They may also use it to provide Mondaq users with information about their products and services.

Details of each Contributor to which your personal data will be transferred is clearly stated within the Content that you access. For full details of how this Contributor will use your personal data, you should review the Contributor’s own Privacy Notice.

Please indicate your preference below:

Yes, I am happy to support Mondaq in maintaining its free to view business model by agreeing to allow Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors whose Content I access
No, I do not want Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors

Also please let us know whether you are happy to receive communications promoting products and services offered by Mondaq:

Yes, I am happy to received promotional communications from Mondaq
No, please do not send me promotional communications from Mondaq
Terms & Conditions

Mondaq.com (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd (Mondaq). Mondaq grants you a non-exclusive, revocable licence to access the Website and associated services, such as the Mondaq News Alerts (Services), subject to and in consideration of your compliance with the following terms and conditions of use (Terms). Your use of the Website and/or Services constitutes your agreement to the Terms. Mondaq may terminate your use of the Website and Services if you are in breach of these Terms or if Mondaq decides to terminate the licence granted hereunder for any reason whatsoever.

Use of www.mondaq.com

To Use Mondaq.com you must be: eighteen (18) years old or over; legally capable of entering into binding contracts; and not in any way prohibited by the applicable law to enter into these Terms in the jurisdiction which you are currently located.

You may use the Website as an unregistered user, however, you are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the Content or to receive the Services.

You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these Terms or with the prior written consent of Mondaq. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information from the Content. Nor shall you extract information about users or Contributors in order to offer them any services or products.

In your use of the Website and/or Services you shall: comply with all applicable laws, regulations, directives and legislations which apply to your Use of the Website and/or Services in whatever country you are physically located including without limitation any and all consumer law, export control laws and regulations; provide to us true, correct and accurate information and promptly inform us in the event that any information that you have provided to us changes or becomes inaccurate; notify Mondaq immediately of any circumstances where you have reason to believe that any Intellectual Property Rights or any other rights of any third party may have been infringed; co-operate with reasonable security or other checks or requests for information made by Mondaq from time to time; and at all times be fully liable for the breach of any of these Terms by a third party using your login details to access the Website and/or Services

however, you shall not: do anything likely to impair, interfere with or damage or cause harm or distress to any persons, or the network; do anything that will infringe any Intellectual Property Rights or other rights of Mondaq or any third party; or use the Website, Services and/or Content otherwise than in accordance with these Terms; use any trade marks or service marks of Mondaq or the Contributors, or do anything which may be seen to take unfair advantage of the reputation and goodwill of Mondaq or the Contributors, or the Website, Services and/or Content.

Mondaq reserves the right, in its sole discretion, to take any action that it deems necessary and appropriate in the event it considers that there is a breach or threatened breach of the Terms.

Mondaq’s Rights and Obligations

Unless otherwise expressly set out to the contrary, nothing in these Terms shall serve to transfer from Mondaq to you, any Intellectual Property Rights owned by and/or licensed to Mondaq and all rights, title and interest in and to such Intellectual Property Rights will remain exclusively with Mondaq and/or its licensors.

Mondaq shall use its reasonable endeavours to make the Website and Services available to you at all times, but we cannot guarantee an uninterrupted and fault free service.

Mondaq reserves the right to make changes to the services and/or the Website or part thereof, from time to time, and we may add, remove, modify and/or vary any elements of features and functionalities of the Website or the services.

Mondaq also reserves the right from time to time to monitor your Use of the Website and/or services.


The Content is general information only. It is not intended to constitute legal advice or seek to be the complete and comprehensive statement of the law, nor is it intended to address your specific requirements or provide advice on which reliance should be placed. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the Content for any purpose. All Content provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers hereby exclude and disclaim all representations, warranties or guarantees with regard to the Content, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. To the maximum extent permitted by law, Mondaq expressly excludes all representations, warranties, obligations, and liabilities arising out of or in connection with all Content. In no event shall Mondaq and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use of the Content or performance of Mondaq’s Services.


Mondaq may alter or amend these Terms by amending them on the Website. By continuing to Use the Services and/or the Website after such amendment, you will be deemed to have accepted any amendment to these Terms.

These Terms shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of England and Wales and you irrevocably submit to the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of England and Wales to settle any dispute which may arise out of or in connection with these Terms. If you live outside the United Kingdom, English law shall apply only to the extent that English law shall not deprive you of any legal protection accorded in accordance with the law of the place where you are habitually resident ("Local Law"). In the event English law deprives you of any legal protection which is accorded to you under Local Law, then these terms shall be governed by Local Law and any dispute or claim arising out of or in connection with these Terms shall be subject to the non-exclusive jurisdiction of the courts where you are habitually resident.

You may print and keep a copy of these Terms, which form the entire agreement between you and Mondaq and supersede any other communications or advertising in respect of the Service and/or the Website.

No delay in exercising or non-exercise by you and/or Mondaq of any of its rights under or in connection with these Terms shall operate as a waiver or release of each of your or Mondaq’s right. Rather, any such waiver or release must be specifically granted in writing signed by the party granting it.

If any part of these Terms is held unenforceable, that part shall be enforced to the maximum extent permissible so as to give effect to the intent of the parties, and the Terms shall continue in full force and effect.

Mondaq shall not incur any liability to you on account of any loss or damage resulting from any delay or failure to perform all or any part of these Terms if such delay or failure is caused, in whole or in part, by events, occurrences, or causes beyond the control of Mondaq. Such events, occurrences or causes will include, without limitation, acts of God, strikes, lockouts, server and network failure, riots, acts of war, earthquakes, fire and explosions.

By clicking Register you state you have read and agree to our Terms and Conditions