CASE COMMENT: REGULATED SECTORS - ELECTRONIC COMMUNICATIONS - RESPECTIVE PLACES OF COMPETITION LAW AND SECTOR REGULATION

Price-squeeze claim: The US Supreme Court dismisses a price-squeeze claim (Pacific Bell)

*This article is an automatic translation of the original article, provided here for your convenience. Read the original article. – US Supreme Court, Pacific Bell Telephone Co. D/B/A AT &T California v. linkLine Communications, Inc. et al, No. 07-512, Feb. 25, 2009 In this judgment, the Supreme Court ruled that a scissor-pricing practice could not constitute a violation of Section 2 of the Sherman Act on abuse of dominance unless there was also evidence of predatory pricing in the downstream retail market. This ruling, which is explicitly in line with its 2004 Trinko ruling, is of crucial importance in US antitrust law. It will be even more important if its reasoning is one day adopted by the European competition authorities and our courts. 1. The Facts The legal issue arose

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

Authors

Quotation

Jean-Paul Tran Thiet, Orion Berg, Price-squeeze claim: The US Supreme Court dismisses a price-squeeze claim (Pacific Bell), 25 February 2009, Concurrences N° 2-2009, Art. N° 25917, pp. 188-190

Visites 2838

All reviews