Note, Antitrust-Divestiture is Available to a Private Plaintiff Under Section 16 of the Clayton Act

Defendant McClatchy Newspapers purchased KOVR-TV in 1965 with the approval of the Federal Communications Commission. Plaintiff, an extensive advertiser, contended that defendant's acquisition of advertising media in central California created a continuing threat of injury to his business in violation of the antitrust laws.' Although not claiming actual injury, plaintiff sought a decree requiring defendant to divest his stock in KOVR-TV. Defendant moved to dismiss, contending divestiture was not an available remedy in a private antitrust suit. Motion denied. Divestiture is available to a private plaintiff under section 16 of the Clayton Act.2. Antitrust remedies include injunctions, damages, and divestitures. The first two remedies were specifically granted to private litigants by the Clayton Act in 1914.8 Divestiture is not mentioned in the antitrust laws except where the power to decree it is granted certain regulatory boards. 4 Although divestiture is an equitable remedy frequently issued in government antitrust suits,5 it has yet to be issued in a private suit under section 16. Section 16 entitles private litigants to injunctive relief from threatened injury resulting from a violation of the antitrust laws. To obtain relief, the complaining party must prove that the alleged offender either has violated the antitrust laws or is about to do so, and that because of this violation he is threatened with loss or injury. He must show potential injury in his private capacity and not simply as a member of the general public