Recently the Supreme Court has been skeptical of expansive Section 2 liability claims, and its decision in Pacific Bell Telephone Co.,dba AT&T California v. LinkLine Communications, is no exception. LinkLine continued the Court’s recent line of cases that have taken a narrow view of liability under Section 2
of the Sherman Act, which prohibits exclusionary conduct that may give
a firm a monopoly, or allow it to preserve or extend its monopoly.
LinkLine, an independent provider of DSL Internet access, relied upon
AT&T to provide wholesale access to its DSL network. AT&T also
provided retail DSL service to consumers. Thus, AT&T was both a
provider to, and a competitor of, LinkLine. Plaintiffs claimed that
AT&T priced its wholesale DSL access too high, and its retail DSL
service too low, so that independent providers like LinkLine were
unfairly squeezed and unable to earn a profit.
Our panel of experts, including attorney writers from the renowned SCOTUSblog,
will analyze the high court’s finding that Section 2 does not recognize
LinkLine’s "price squeeze" claim. They will also examine what it means
to antitrust in general, particularly in light of a recent sports
licensing case that has drawn intense interest from the NFL, the NBA,
and the NHL.
Questions to be addressed:
 |
Does
the Court's decision add anything new to Section 2 jurisprudence? What
does the Court's decision mean for the future of Section 2?
|
|
Is
the Court relaxing predatory pricing liability standards for
monopolists? Is it signaling a future rollback of liability for
predatory pricing claims? |
|
The
Court broadly states that "for antitrust purposes, there is no reason
to distinguish between price and nonprice components of a transaction."
What implication does this have for antitrust liability? |
|
Did
the Court even need to decide the case at all, or is the Dissent
correct that given the pleading posture of the case, the appeal was
essentially moot? What does the court's willingness to decide the
merits of the case mean for its approach to antitrust cases generally? |
Speakers:
Thomas C. Goldstein, Partner, Co-head of the firmwide litigation and Supreme Court practices, Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP
Mark J. Botti, Partner, Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP
D. Daniel Sokol, Assistant Professor, University of Florida Levin College of Law; Contributing author, Antitrust & Competition Policy Blog |
West LegalEdcenter Webcast
March 23, 2009
1 pm – 2 pm Eastern
12 pm – 1 pm Central
11 am – 12 pm Mountain
10 am – 11 am Pacific
Registration fee
$135
 |
Facts about online CLE
Many states allow some or all required CLE credits to be earned online. Check your state requirements.
If you intend to take a course for CLE credit, please make sure your
state is listed in the "Accreditation" section to the right of the
program description. |
|
Live and On Demand Antitrust & Trade Regulation Webcasts