Section 4 of the Clayton Act, 38 Stat. 731, provides a treble-damages remedy to '[any] person who shall be injured in his business or property by reason of anything forbidden in the antitrust laws,' 15 U. S. C. § 15 (emphasis added). As noted in Reiter v. Sonotone Corp., 442 U.S. 330, 337 (1979), 'on its face, § 4 contains little in the way of restrictive language.' And the lack of restrictive language reflects Congress' 'expansive remedial purpose' in enacting § 4: Congress sought to create a private enforcement mechanism that would deter violators and deprive them of the fruits of their illegal actions, and would provide ample compensation to the victims of antitrust violations. Pfizer Inc. v. India, 434 U.S. 308, 313-314 (1978). See Brunswick Corp. v. Pueblo Bowl-O-Mat, Inc., 429 U.S. 477, 485-486, and n. 10, (1977); Perma Mufflers, Inc. v. International Parts Corp., 392 U.S. 134, 139 (1968); American Society of Mechanical Engineers v. Hydrolevel Corp., 456 U.S. 556, 572-573, and n. 10 (1982). 'The statute does not confine its protection to consumers, or to purchasers, or to competitors, or to sellers. . . . The Act is comprehensive in its terms and coverage, ...