In a similar Connecticut case the plaintiff Vacco, an end purchaser of a computer loaded with Microsoft software, brought claims under the Connecticut Antitrust Act and the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act ("CUTPA"). The trial court ruled that Vacco was an indirect purchaser and held that the Connecticut Antitrust Act incorporated the United States Supreme Court's Illinois Brick prohibition against suits by indirect purchasers. The trial court also dismissed the CUTPA claim, ruling that to permit the CUTPA claim to proceed "would be contrary to Supreme Court authority . . . and would undermine the Supreme Court's policy choices in its interpretation of federal antitrust law, which this court is directed to follow."
NELF, the Connecticut Business and Industry Association and the Association for Competitive Technology joined in an amicus brief supporting Microsoft's position. The Connecticut Supreme Court upheld the lower court decision, holding that Vacco’s claimed injuries were too indirect with respect to Microsoft’s allegedly anticompetetive conduct for Vacco to recover under CUPTA.