Supreme Court Holds That Price Squeeze Claims Are Not Cognizable Absent a Duty to Deal at the Wholesale Level
Date: 03/02/09
On February 25, 2009, the Supreme Court issued a unanimous decision in Pacific Bell Tel. Co. d/b/a AT&T California v. linkLine Commc'ns, Inc. Resolving a split among the lower courts, the Court held that a price-squeeze claim may not be brought under Section 2 of the Sherman Act unless the defendant has an antitrust duty to deal with the plaintiff at wholesale. The Court also clarified that the pleading standards announced in Twombly, which arose in the conspiracy Section 1 context, apply to Section 2 monopolization claims.
This memorandum is for general information purposes only and is not intended to advertise our services, solicit clients or represent our legal advice.
Download: Supreme Court Rejects Antitrust Price-Squeeze Claim (PDF, 157.16 K)
Related Attorneys:
Patricia Farren,
Elai Katz,
Dean Ringel,
Laurence T. Sorkin,
Related Practices:
Antitrust & Trade Regulation,
Litigation
|