Antitrust laws are statutory. Courts can’t ‘expand’ them.
George Bibikos 19, Founder of GA Bibikos LL.C., J.D. from Widener Commonwealth Law School; Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, “Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Appelle, vs. Chesapeake Energy Corporation et al., Appellants,” https://paforciviljusticereform.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/11/PCCJR-Chesapeake.pdf
The court’s decision therefore (a) alters the rights of parties in Pennsylvania accused of engaging in anticompetitive behavior to defend against those claims in federal court, (b) creates new causes of action under the Consumer Protection Law, and (c) creates new remedies for antitrust violations that defendants would not face in federal court. These decisions are inherently legislative in nature. See, e.g., State v. Philip Morris, Inc., Nos. 96122017 and CL211487, 1997 WL 540913, at *6 (Md. Cir. Ct. May 21, 1997) (“Altering common law rights, creating new causes of action, and providing new remedies for wrongs is generally a legislative function, not a judicial function.”). If these decisions are legislative in nature, then they are outside the purview of the courts and the executive.
Moreover, when the General Assembly prescribes specific statutory duties and remedies, those provisions must be strictly followed, 1 Pa.C.S. § 1504, and the courts cannot “expand coverage to subsume other remedies.” See Nat’l R. R. Passenger Corp. v. Nat’l Ass’n of R.R. Passengers, 414 U.S. 453, 458 (1974) (“A frequently stated principle of statutory construction is that when legislation expressly provides a particular remedy or remedies, courts should not expand the coverage of the statute to subsume other remedies.”). If the Consumer Protection Law is designed to protect buyers in consumer transactions and sets forth specific remedies, the courts are unable to expand the statute to subsume antitrust remedies.