L.Ed.2d 442 (1981). III. Antitrust Injury and Standing Under Robinson-Patman In dismissing the Blue Tree Owners’ complaint, the district court held that the only plaintiffs who would have standing to sue for the alleged § 2(c) violation arising from the challenged vendor payments would be those vendors of hotel supplies who directly compete with the vendors who made the payments. We agree with the Blue Tree Owners that, in so holding, the district court erroneously imposed the “competitive injury” requirement applicable to a prima facie violation of § 2(a) of the Robinson-Patman Act, 15 U.S.C. § 13(a). See, e.g., FTC v. Simplicity Pattern Co., 360 U.S. 55, 65-67, 79 S.Ct. 1005, 3 L.Ed.2d 1079 (1959); Best Brands Beverage, Inc. v. Falstaff Brewing Corp., 842 F.2d 578, 584 (2d Cir.1987) (<HOLDING>). Section 2(a) prohibits price discrimination
holding that an antitrust injury is a necessary element of a  2 claim holding that standing to raise a claim under  2a of robinsonpatman act is derived from section 4 of the clayton act holding the connection is an element holding that competitive injury is an element of a  2a claim holding that prejudice or injury is a necessary element of standing