The US Supreme Court affirms that when a regulatory structure aiming to deter and remedy anti­-competitive harm prevails, the costs of antitrust enforcement are likely to be greater than the benefits (Pacific Bell Telephone / Linkline Communications)

Supreme Court Restricts “Price-Squeeze” Claims Under Section 2 of the Sherman Act to Situations Where the Defendant has an Antitrust Duty to Deal* In Pacific Bell Telephone Co. v. Linkline Communications Inc., 2009 U.S. Lexis 1635, 555 U.S. ______ (February 25, 2009) ("Linkline"), the U.S. Supreme Court, mostly following its decision in Verizon Communications, Inc. v. Law Offices of Curtis V. Trinko, LLP, 540 U.S. 398 (2004) ("Trinko"), held that a plaintiff cannot bring a valid “price-squeeze” claim under Section 2 of the Sherman Act where (1) the monopolist owes no "antitrust duty" to deal with the plaintiff being “squeezed”, and (2) the monopolist’s sales into the downstream market at retail are not below an "appropriate measure of its rival’s cost," as defined by the Supreme Court in

Access to this article is restricted to subscribers

Already Subscribed? Sign-in

Access to this article is restricted to subscribers.

Read one article for free

Sign-up to read this article for free and discover our services.

 

PDF Version

Author

  • Sheppard Mullin (Los Angeles)

Quotation

Jr. Don T. Hibner, The US Supreme Court affirms that when a regulatory structure aiming to deter and remedy anti­-competitive harm prevails, the costs of antitrust enforcement are likely to be greater than the benefits (Pacific Bell Telephone / Linkline Communications), 25 February 2009, e-Competitions Bulletin US Private Enforcement, Art. N° 67636

Visites 108

All issues

  • Latest News issue 
  • All News issues
  • Latest Special issue 
  • All Special issues