behalf of the State or State entities, such claims are authorized under Missouri Antitrust Law, Mo. Stat. Ann. §§ 416.011 et seq. The Court will not dismiss Missouri’s claims for equitable monetary relief on its own behalf under the MPA because it is not clear that the definition of “persons” in Mo. Stat. Ann. § 407.010(5) excludes the State; it may be included in the category of “other legal entity.” Additionally, as discussed above, the requirement that the goods be purchased “primarily for personal, family or household purposes” does not exclude the State or State entities. Defendants do not contest the State’s authority to seek restitution and/or disgorgement on behalf of indirect purchasers under the MPA in light of Campos v. Ticketmaster Corp., 140 F.3d 1166, 1172 (8th Cir.1998) (<HOLDING>). The MPA also authorizes civil penalties up to
holding that injunctive relief was unwarranted when the jurys award already included prospective relief holding that even if indirect purchasers are barred from seeking damages relief they may still obtain injunctive relief holding that lack of subject matter jurisdiction precluded court from awarding injunctive relief as well as damages holding that a court may award injunctive relief against a state officer holding that an arbitration agreement between a charging party and an employer precludes the eeoc from seeking purely monetary relief in federal court on behalf of the charging party but not from seeking broad injunctive relief