In California v. ARC America Corp., 490 U.S. 93, 104 L. Ed. 2d 86, 109 S. Ct. 1661 (1989), the states of Alabama, Arizona, California, and Minnesota brought class actions in federal courts alleging a nationwide conspiracy by various cement producers to fix the prices of cement. In addition to bringing federal claims, the plaintiffs alleged violations of their respective state antitrust laws under which indirect purchasers arguably were allowed to recover for all overcharges passed on to them by direct purchasers. 490 U.S. at 97-98. The lower courts held that the state indirect purchaser claims did not satisfy any exception to Illinois Brick and were therefore barred. Id. at 99. The ARC America Court stated that the statutes of Alabama, California, and Minnesota expressly allowed indirect purchasers to sue. 490 U.S. at 98 n.3. The Court further noted that while the Arizona statute generally followed the language of the Clayton Act, "it might be interpreted as a matter of state law as authorizing indirect purchasers to recover." Id. The Court, however, did not have to interpret the Arizona statute to reach its holding and therefore expressed no opinion on this question of Arizona law. Id. The Supreme Court reversed. It found that "given the long history of state common-law and statutory remedies against monopolies and unfair business practices, it is plain that this is an area traditionally regulated by the States." 490 U.S. at 101. The Court concluded that Congress had not preempted the field of antitrust law but instead "intended the federal antitrust laws to supplement, not displace, state antitrust remedies." Id. at 102.