In the case of Reiter v. Sonotone Corp., the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that consumers could sue for damages under antitrust laws, specifically Section 4 of the Clayton Act, which allows any person who is injured in his business or property by reason of anything forbidden in antitrust laws to sue. The plaintiff, a hearing aid purchaser, alleged that manufacturers and retailers conspired to fix prices at artificially high levels violating federal antitrust law. The defendants argued that consumers were not protected under this act as they did not suffer injury to their "business or property." However, the court held that when a consumer pays more than a competitive price due to anti-competitive behavior such as price-fixing conspiracies it constitutes an injury to “property” within meaning of Section 4.

In the dissenting opinion for Reiter v. Sonotone Corp., Justice William H. Rehnquist disagreed with the majority's interpretation of "business or property" in Section 4 of the Clayton Act, which allows private parties to sue for damages caused by antitrust violations. He argued that this phrase should be interpreted more broadly to include personal injuries suffered as a result of such violations, not just financial losses incurred by businesses or property owners. According to him, consumers who are overcharged due to price-fixing conspiracies suffer an injury similar to those whose business or property is damaged and therefore should also have standing under Section 4. The majority’s narrow interpretation would exclude these individuals from seeking redress under federal antitrust laws despite their being directly harmed by anti-competitive practices.