Pacific Bell Telephone Co. v. LinkLine Communications (2008)
- Docket
- 07-512
- Decided
- 2008-01-01
Summary
Question: In light of prior Court precedent on the issue, is "price squeezing" still a valid claim under Section 2 of the Sherman Act when brought against a company acting in a partially regulated industry? Conclusion: No. The Supreme Court reversed the Ninth Circuit holding that a "price squeezing" claim cannot be brought under Section 2 of the Sherman Act when the defendant is under no duty to sell inputs to the plaintiff in the first place. With Chief Justice John G. Roberts writing for the majority and joined by Justice Antonin G. Scalia, Justice Anthony M. Kennedy, Justice Clarence Thomas, and Justice Samuel A. Alito, the Court relying on its decision in Verizon Communications Inc. v. Law Offices of Curtis V. Trinko , reasoned that since there was no duty on the part of AT&T to deal with its competitors and no support under existing antitrust doctrine that AT&T's retail prices were "too low", the plaintiffs' claim was barred under Section 2. Justice Stephen G. Breyer wrote a separate concurring opinion and was joined by Justice John Paul Stevens, Justice David H. Souter, and Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg. He argued that the Court should remand the case to the district court and allow the plaintiffs to amend their complaint to include a "predatory pricing" claim.