|
|
Article: LinkLine: Little Room Left For Price Squeeze Claims.(Case overview)
- Article from:
- Mondaq Business Briefing
- Article date:
- March 5, 2009
CopyrightCOPYRIGHT 2009 Mondaq Ltd. This material is published under license from the publisher through the Gale Group, Farmington Hills, Michigan. All inquiries regarding rights should be directed to the Gale Group. (Hide copyright information)
|
The Supreme Court ruled last week that "price squeeze" claims cannot be brought under the federal antitrust laws unless the defendant firm has a separate antitrust duty to deal with the plaintiffs in the first place. Pacific Bell Tel. Co. v. LinkLine Communications, Inc., 555 U.S. __ (2009). This ruling overturns long-established appellate court precedent and effectively abolishes price squeeze liability as an independent basis for bringing antitrust claims against dominant vertically integrated firms. The decision also highlights the Supreme Court's recent trend toward giving firms more room under the antitrust laws to take unilateral action against rivals without fear ...
Related newspaper, magazine, and journal articles:
|
|
Article: U.S. Supreme Court: Pacific Bell Telephone Co. v. ...
The Daily Record (Baltimore);
March 16, 2009 ;
700+ words
... ... whether Trinko bars price-squeeze claims when the parties ... address the viability of price-squeeze claims, and thus ... section]2 claim. The Supreme Court granted AT&T's ... apparently apart from their price-squeeze theory. That test ...
|
|