policy concerns. First, Media Sciences is correct in asserting that the Supreme Court has suggested, albeit in dicta, that it would not hesitate to condemn a tandem of a forum-selection clause and a choice-of-law provision that operated “as a prospective waiver of a party’s right to pursue statutory remedies for antitrust violations.” Mitsubishi Motors Corp. v. Soler Chrysler-Plymouth, Inc., 473 U.S. 614, 637 n. 19, 105 S.Ct. 3346, 87 L.Ed.2d 444 (1985) (emphasis supplied). Following this suggestion, other courts have refused to enforce general releases and arbitration agreements that they have found act to waive or immunize parties from liability for future antitrust violations. See, e.g., Lawlor v. Nat’l Screen Serv. Corp., 349 U.S. 322, 324-328, 75 S.Ct. 865, 99 L.Ed. 1122 (1955) (<HOLDING>); In re Amer. Express. Merchs.’ Litig., 554
holding that a prior settlement of an antitrust conspiracy case and the resulting judgment dismissing the suit with prejudice could not have res judicata effect in a later suit against additional parties in which the plaintiffs alleged claims based on new types of antitrust violations that were not contemplated by the earlier settlement when it would have the effect of conferring on defendants partial immunity from civil liability for distinct future antitrust violations holding that a plaintiff must show antitrust injury in order to bring an antitrust lawsuit holding additional parties in second suit do not prevent the application of res judicata based on the first suit holding that there must be a causal connection between the alleged antitrust violation and the antitrust injury for there to be antitrust standing holding that an activity which is exempt from the antitrust laws cannot form the basis of an antitrust investigation