You are receiving this e-mail because the e-mail address was subscribed to our e-mail list. Having trouble reading this e-mail? CLICK HERE to view it on our web site.

Litigation eAlert
February 26, 2009

Resources


Offices

Austin
100 Congress Avenue
Suite 1100
Austin, Texas  78701

Dallas
901 Main Street
Suite 6000
Dallas, TX  75202

Fort Worth
301 Commerce Street
Suite 2400
Fort Worth, Texas  76102

Houston
1401 McKinney Street
Suite 1900
Houston, Texas  77010

San Angelo
301 W. Beauregard Avenue
Suite 200
San Angelo, Texas  76903

San Antonio
112 E. Pecan Street
Suite 2400
San Antonio, Texas  78205

U.S. Supreme Court Ruling on
Price-Squeeze Claim

By:  Kathleen M. LaValle

On February 25, 2009, the U.S. Supreme Court delivered a unanimous opinion in Pacific Bell Telephone Co. v. linkLINE Communications, Inc., ruling that Internet service providers (ISPs) may not assert a viable price-squeeze claim under Section 2 of the Sherman Act in the absence of an allegation that the defendant has an antitrust duty to deal at the wholesale level or has engaged in unlawful predatory pricing at the retail level. The ISPs claimed that an AT&T affiliate negatively impacted the margins of ISPs operating in the retail market by raising its wholesale pricing of DSL and lowering its retail pricing of DSL services. The ISPs argued that the Supreme Court's rejection of antitrust claims based on allegations of inadequate wholesale assistance in Verizon Communications, Inc. v. Law Offices of Curtis V. Trinko did not legally foreclose their price-squeeze claim. While recognizing that Trinko did not directly address pricing claims, the Court nonetheless concludes that "the reasoning of Trinko applies with equal force to price-squeeze claims."

Reinforcing the general rule that "businesses are free to choose the parties with whom they will deal, as well as the prices, terms, and conditions of that dealing," Justice Roberts' opinion also adds institutional concerns that courts cannot be expected to police the "moving target" interaction between wholesale and retail pricing. The opinion characterizes the ISPs as having "tried to join a wholesale claim that cannot succeed with a retail claim that cannot succeed...alchemiz[ing] them into a new form of antitrust liability never before recognized by this Court." The case is now remanded to the district court, which will determine whether to allow the ISPs to amend their complaint to allege predatory pricing under the two-prong standard in Brooke Group Ltd. v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp., 509 U.S. 209, 222-224, which requires both below-cost retail pricing and a dangerous probability that the defendant will recoup any lost profits.

To view the opinion, please CLICK HERE.

If you have any questions regarding the content in this e-Alert, please contact Kathleen M. LaValle at 214.953.6144 or klavalle@jw.com.


If you wish to be added to this e-Alert listing, please CLICK HERE to sign up. If you wish to be removed, please reply to this e-mail with REMOVE in the subject line and include your first and last name.

Austin

Dallas

Fort Worth

Houston

San Angelo

San Antonio