..., and where the effect of such discrimination may be substantially to lessen competition or tend to create a monopoly in any line of commerce, or to injure, destroy, or prevent competition with any person who either grants or knowingly receives the benefit of such discrimination, or with customers of either of them.... 15 U.S.C. § 13(a). Plaintiffs’ complaint fails to allege facts that would satisfy the elements of a § 13(a) price discrimination claim. For example, plaintiffs do not allege any facts showing how any of the Individual Defendants’ behavior substantially lessens or injures competition, but rather plaintiffs allege only injury to themselves. In fact, the plaintiffs’ complaint contains none of the all Corp., 509 U.S. 209, 222-24, 113 S.Ct. 2578, 125 L.Ed.2d 168 (1993) (<HOLDING>); see also Black Gold, Ltd. v. Rock0wool
holding that for a plaintiff to establish primaryline competitive injury resulting from a rivals low prices the plaintiff must show that the prices complained of are below the appropriate measure of the rivals costs and that the rival had a reasonable prospect of recouping its investment in belowcost prices holding that to show a causal connection the plaintiff must demonstrate a relationship between the misconduct and the plaintiffs injury holding that for a plaintiff to establish secondaryline competitive injury resulting from price discrimination injuring competition among the discriminating sellers customers the plaintiff must show actual competition with that sellers customers holding that the plaintiff could not show surprise when the plaintiff had received the additional terms from the defendant prior to the agreement holding that in order to establish standing the prospect of obtaining relief from the injury as a result of a favorable ruling must not be too speculative