Plaintiffs appeal from an order dismissing their complaint against the Comptroller of the Currency of the United States and the Minnesota domiciled American National Bank and Trust Company. One of the plaintiffs is Association of Data Processing Service Organizations, an incorporated association of data service organizations domiciled in Pennsylvania whose members perform data processing services throughout the United States. It is hereinafter referred to as ADAPSO. The other plaintiff, Data Systems, Inc., is a Minnesota corporation engaged in the data processing business, with its principal place of business in Minneapolis. The complaint seeks equitable relief against the defendants and a "determination of the powers granted national banking associations under [the National Bank] Act as set forth in 12 U.S.Code § 24." It is alleged that by administrative rule the Comptroller of the Currency has authorized national banks to perform data processing services for bank customers in violation of 12 U.S.C. § 24 which gives national banks only "incidental powers as shall be necessary to carry on the business of banking." Plaintiffs allege that as a result of the unauthorized action ADAPSO members are threatened with the loss of a substantial part of the data processing market.1 It is alleged that American National now performs data processing services for two companies with whom Data Systems had "negotiated" as prospective customers.

Jurisdiction is asserted by reason of an alleged federal question arising under the banking laws of the United States. 12 U.S.C. §§ 21 et seq. The trial court dismissed plaintiffs' complaint for lack of jurisdictional standing. We affirm.

The question of standing serves as a test of federal jurisdiction. Standing is the constitutional prerequisite related to whether a justiciable "case or controversy" exists. Involved is an examination to determine whether the plaintiffs have a personal stake legally sufficient "to assure that concrete adverseness" which avoids merely abstract determinations. Flast v. Cohen, 392 U.S. 83, 88 S. Ct. 1942, 20 L. Ed. 2d 947 (1968). See also Aetna Life Ins. Co. of Hartford, Conn. v. Haworth, 300 U.S. 227, 57 S. Ct. 461, 81 L. Ed. 617 (1937). Justiciability, although not always related to standing, becomes definitively attached when we consider whether the legal relationships of parties are such that they are aligned with adverse legal interests.

Plaintiffs assert standing in that they have been and will continue to be economically injured by illegal competition of the national banks. Whether a litigant has standing to challenge competitive injury has been the subject of extended litigation and discussion. Doctrinal rules have developed a maze of conceptualistic abstractions and theories which at times are viewed and applied as being indistinguishable one from another. See Baker, Watts & Co. v. Saxon, 261 F. Supp. 247 (D.D.C.1966), aff'd sub nom., Port of N. Y. Authority v. Baker, Watts & Co., 129 U.S.App.D.C. 173, 392 F.2d 497 (1968); Saxon v. Georgia Ass'n of Ind. Ins. Agents, Inc., 399 F.2d 1010, 1019 (5 Cir. 1968) (concurring opinion).2

The trial court here has observed that language in Rural Elec. Admin. v. Northern States Power Co., 373 F.2d 686 (8 Cir. 1967) (denying standing)3 and in Webster Groves Trust Co. v. Saxon, 370 F.2d 381 (8 Cir. 1966) (allowing standing)4 seems to state divergent principles, either of which could govern in the instant case. However, all legal principles must be qualitatively analyzed within the context of factual surroundings. Much of the confusion on standing seems to arise from the emphasis upon the issues to be adjudicated or upon the possible merits of the substantive claim rather than upon an examination of the status of the complaining plaintiff. Whether or not a defendant is alleged to be engaged in illegal competition cannot by itself determine a plaintiff's standing to complain. Cf. City of Chicago v. Atchison, T. & S. F. Ry., 357 U.S. 77, 78 S. Ct. 1063, 2 L. Ed. 2d 1174 (1958) and note 8 infra. Chief Justice Warren has stated, "The fundamental aspect of standing is that it focuses on the party seeking to get his complaint before a federal court and not on the issues he wishes to have adjudicated." However, he added, "* * * it is both appropriate and necessary to look to the substantive issues for another purpose, namely, to determine whether there is a logical nexus between the status asserted and the claim sought to be adjudicated." Flast v. Cohen, 392 U.S. 83, 99, 102, 88 S. Ct. 1942, 1952, 20 L. Ed. 2d 947 (1968).

Whether a party may or may not challenge allegedly illegal competition by others is best evaluated by examining the various factual circumstances within which the courts have discussed a particular plaintiff's standing and competitive injury.

Perhaps most well known are the so-called "power cases," where the threatened economic loss arises from government-created competition. In these situations the embryo of the competition by the defendant is generally found in congressional legislation. But even though the validity of such legislation is challenged, or an attack is made on the authority of a government agent to loan money, the courts uniformly have denied standing to competitors who otherwise possess no legal right to be free from competition.5 This group of cases is represented by Tennessee Elec. Power Co. v. TVA, 306 U.S. 118, 137, 59 S. Ct. 366, 369, 83 L. Ed. 543 (1939), which early emphasized:

"The appellants invoke the doctrine that one threatened with direct and special injury by the act of an agent of the government which, but for statutory authority for its performance, would be a violation of his legal rights, may challenge the validity of the statute in a suit against the agent. The principle is without application unless the right invaded is a legal right, — one of property, one arising out of contract, one protected against tortious invasion, or one founded on a statute which confers a privilege."

See also Rural Elec. Admin. v. Northern States Power Co., supra.

Secondly, in contrast to the "power" cases are situations where a plaintiff, possessing a public grant or contract to operate, seeks to prevent a competitor from entering into an area of regulated and restricted competition. Representative of these cases is Frost v. Corporation Comm'n, 278 U.S. 515, 49 S. Ct. 235, 73 L. Ed. 483 (1929). This court has applied the rationale of Frost to a suit by a state bank against the Comptroller to prevent illegal competition. Webster Groves Trust Co. v. Saxon, 370 F.2d 381 (8 Cir. 1966). As observed in Whitney Nat'l Bank in Jefferson Parish v. Bank of New Orleans & Trust Co., 116 U.S.App.D.C. 285, 323 F.2d 290 (1963), rev'd on other grounds, 379 U.S. 411, 85 S. Ct. 551, 13 L. Ed. 2d 386 (1965), involved is a property right arising out of a public charter which bestows a legal interest on a state bank to complain.6

Closely related but significantly different are those cases involving areas of competition which because of public interest find need of public licensing as opposed to a public grant or contract.7 Here plaintiff-competitors are considered to be without a private "legal right" to protest unauthorized competition but nevertheless find standing by specific legislation as "aggrieved persons" to act in the public interest. See, e. g., FCC v. Sanders Bros. Radio Station, 309 U.S. 470, 60 S. Ct. 693, 84 L. Ed. 869 (1940); Scripps-Howard Radio, Inc. v. FCC, 316 U.S. 4, 62 S. Ct. 875, 86 L. Ed. 1229 (1942). Cf. Office of Communication of United Church of Christ v. FCC, 123 U.S.App.D.C. 328, 359 F.2d 994 (1966). In these cases Congress has patently recognized need for judicial review even though the competitive business controlled is considered free and otherwise unrestrieted.8

Fourth, there are situations where competitors are given standing to challenge competition which is allegedly in violation of a statute, where the statute itself is said to be enacted for the express protection of the class of competitor complaining. The most recent example of these cases is found in Hardin v. Kentucky Util. Co., 390 U.S. 1, 88 S. Ct. 651, 19 L. Ed. 2d 787 (1968).9 Plaintiffs' reliance on recent cases against the Comptroller fall within facile classification of this rule. See, e. g., Baker, Watts & Co. v. Saxon, 261 F. Supp. 247, supra, as explained in Investment Co. Institute v. Camp, 274 F. Supp. 624, 636 (D.D.C. 1967); Saxon v. Georgia Ass'n of Ind. Ins. Agents, Inc., 399 F.2d 1010 (5 Cir. 1968).10

Fifth, the last group of "competition" cases relates to a plaintiff's unsuccessful challenge of a competitor's alleged ultra vires acts affecting plaintiff's nonregulated area of commerce. This factual setting is best illustrated by Railroad Co. v. Ellerman, 105 U.S. 166, 26 L. Ed. 1015 (1882). In that case the plaintiff, who had contracted with the city of New Orleans to collect revenue from users of the city wharves, sought to enjoin a railroad company from operating wharves in New Orleans. He alleged this action would constitute illegal competition because the state statute authorizing the company to operate wharves was unconstitutional. The principle here furnishes an analogue to that in the "power cases" where the conduct of the defendant, although alleged to be illegal is nevertheless considered "lawful" with respect to the plaintiff because of the total absence of legal interest found in plaintiff's status.11

In summary, a plaintiff may challenge alleged illegal competition when as complainant it pursues (1) a legal interest by reason of public charter or contract, Frost v. Corporation Comm'n, supra, (2) a legal interest by reason of statutory protection, Baker, Watts & Co. v. Saxon, supra, or (3) a "public interest" in which Congress has recognized the need for review of administrative action and plaintiff is significantly involved to have standing to represent the public, FCC v. Sanders Bros. Radio Station, supra. From this analysis, it seems clear that an allegation of "illegal competition" is not the balancing determinant of a plaintiff's standing. The primary search must rest on whether the plaintiff's status is one which enjoys a private interest entitled to protection or is one which the law recognizes to be of such legal significance to allow a party to act as a public representative for a public interest.

In the instant case the facts clearly place plaintiffs outside those cases which recognize standing. Plaintiffs are competing in a non-regulatory field of free competition. They possess no private legal interest nor do they plead any legal harm which is recognized at law. Their status is not one which places them within a class designedly protected by statute.12 In direct accord see Wingate Corp. v. Industrial Nat'l Bank, 288 F. Supp. 49 (D.R.I.1968); Arnold Tours, Inc. v. Camp, 286 F. Supp. 770 (D.Mass. 1968).

Plaintiffs' argument is in essence an equitable plea, that in effect they have a personal stake to pursue, even though not a legal one, but nevertheless one which makes them logical parties to protect the public interest from illegal actions of government agencies.

The problem with their plea is many-fold. Congress has not seen fit within the National Bank Act to recognize any "aggrieved person" to assert the public's rights. Congress has not expressed a public concern for protection as found in FCC v. Sanders Bros. Radio Station, 309 U.S. 470, 60 S. Ct. 693, 84 L. Ed. 869 (1940), and its progenitors. Without a legal interest or the status of a recognized "aggrieved" party, the complaint resolves itself into an attempt merely to show "a common concern for obedience to law." L. Singer & Sons v. Union Pac. R. R., 311 U.S. 295, 304, 61 S. Ct. 254, 258, 85 L. Ed. 198 (1940). As pronounced in Singer, outside statutory consent, the general or common interest can find protection only in the standing granted to public authorities. Unless a relevant statute provides for a "party in interest" to seek judicial review or unless a complainant possesses a recognized legal interest, he lacks standing to be a "private attorney general" to represent the public interest. See Kansas City Power & Light Co. v. McKay, 96 U.S.App.D.C. 273, 225 F.2d 924 (1955); Braude v. Wirtz, 350 F.2d 702, 707, 708 (9 Cir. 1965).13

Mr. Justice Frankfurter best describes judicial obligation to avoid review when legal standing is not otherwise involved:

"The jurisdiction of the federal courts can be invoked only under circumstances which to the expert feel of lawyers constitute a `case or controversy.' The scope and consequences of the review with which the judiciary is entrusted over executive and legislative action require us to observe these bounds fastidiously." Joint Anti-Fascist Refugee Committee v. McGrath, 341 U.S. 123, 150, 71 S. Ct. 624, 637, 95 L. Ed. 817 (1951) (concurring opinion).

Judgment affirmed.