On January 7, 2020, the First Circuit denied interlocutory review under Rule 23(f) in a case deciding who can seek damages for alleged antitrust violations. The denial was a setback for WLF, which argued in an amicus brief that antitrust standing should be limited to those who had direct financial dealings with an alleged antitrust violator. In this case, a district court certified a class action in which half of the class plaintiffs never had any direct business dealings with the defendants—two companies alleged to have conspired to raise prices. The Supreme Court has generally limited antitrust standing to only those who purchase directly from the defendants, because it is often impossible to determine whether the defendants were the actual cause of more remote injuries. WLF filed its brief on behalf of itself, the National Association of Manufacturers, and the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America.