A RetroSearch Logo

Home - News ( United States | United Kingdom | Italy | Germany ) - Football scores

Search Query:

Showing content from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pacific_Bell_Telephone_Co._v._linkLine_Communications,_Inc. below:

Pacific Bell Telephone Co. v. linkLine Communications, Inc.

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

2009 United States Supreme Court case

Pacific Bell Telephone Co. v. linkLine Communications, Inc. Supreme Court of the United States Full case name Pacific Bell Telephone Co., dba AT&T California, et al. v. linkLine Communications, Inc., et al. Docket no. 07-512 Citations 555 U.S. 438 (more)

129 S. Ct. 1109; 172

L. Ed. 2d

836

The Supreme Court held 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.
Chief Justice
John Roberts
Associate Justices
John P. Stevens · Antonin Scalia
Anthony Kennedy · David Souter
Clarence Thomas · Ruth Bader Ginsburg
Stephen Breyer · Samuel Alito
Majority Roberts, joined by Scalia, Kennedy, Thomas, Alito Concurrence Breyer (in judgment), joined by Stevens, Souter, Ginsburg Section 2 of the Sherman Antitrust Act

Pacific Bell Telephone Co. v. linkLine Communications, Inc., 555 U.S. 438 (2009), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court unanimously held that Pacific Bell d/b/a AT&T did not violate the Sherman Antitrust Act when it charged other Internet providers a high fee to buy space on its phone lines to deliver an Internet connection.[1] The court ruled that where there is no duty to deal at the wholesale level and no predatory pricing at the retail level, a firm is not required to price both of these services in a manner that preserves its rivals’ profit margins.

This case was initiated by Internet service providers (ISP), alleging that incumbent telephone companies that owned infrastructure and facilities needed to provide digital subscriber line (DSL) service monopolized and attempted to monopolize regional DSL market. The ISP's claimed that the telephone companies accomplished this by squeezing the providers' profits by charging them high wholesale price for DSL transport and charging consumers low retail price for DSL Internet service. Ultimately, the court concluded that the case was not moot, as it was not clear whether the providers had unequivocally abandoned their price-squeeze claims; prudential concerns favored answering the question presented.

United States antitrust law Statutes and
regulations Supreme Court
case law Sherman Antitrust Act
Section 1 case law Sherman Antitrust Act
Section 2 case law Other Sherman
Antitrust Act
cases Interstate Commerce Act
case law Clayton Antitrust Act
case law FTC Act case law Robinson–Patman Act
case law Other cases Other federal
case law Ongoing
litigation ‡ Related topics

‡ date of filing


RetroSearch is an open source project built by @garambo | Open a GitHub Issue

Search and Browse the WWW like it's 1997 | Search results from DuckDuckGo

HTML: 3.2 | Encoding: UTF-8 | Version: 0.7.3