OPINION AND ORDER When a consumer enters a supermarket, she may see an instant coupon dispenser on a shelf or a cardboard structure in an aisle promoting a specific product. These types of displays are generically referred to as in-store promotions (“ISPs”). Providers of ISPs pay supermarket retailers for the exclusive right to place ISPs in the retailer’s entire chain of stores. Having locked up the chain, the ISP provider then markets its ability to place ISPs to manufacturers and distributers of consumer packaged goods (“CPGs”). CPGs then pay ISP providers to place ISPs for their products into the retailer’s stores. In addition to supermarkets (i.e. the “food” segment), similar arrangements are made in the “drug” and “dollar” segments of the ISP market.One ISP provider, Valassis Communications, Inc., brings an assortment of claims, including, monopolization, predatory pricing, and exclusive dealing claims, against the dominant player in the market, News Corporation and its affiliates (collectively, “News”).1News now moves for summary judgment dismissing all of Valassis’s claims. For reasons that will be explained, that motion will be granted in part and denied in part.THE COMPLAINT AND THE PROCEDURAL HISTORY OF THE ACTIONFor most of its life, this action has been pending in the Eastern District of Michigan. Three years and ten months after filing, it was transferred to this district and assigned to the undersigned.Valassis alleged eight counts of federal antitrust violations and eight counts of state law violations, numbered below according to the complaint. Specifically, Valassis alleged violations of sections 1 and 2 of the Sherman Act and section 3 of the Clayton Act: (I) monopolization of the ISP market in violation of 15 U.S.C. §2; (II) predatory pricing in the ISP market in violation of 15 U.S.C. §2; (III) attempted monopolization of the market for free-standing inserts (“FSIs”), a form of coupon distribution, in violation of 15 U.S.C. §2; (IV) exclusive dealing with retailers in the ISP market in violation of 15 U.S.C. §§1&2 and 15 U.S.C. §14; (V) exclusive dealing with CPGs in the ISP market in violation of 15 U.S.C. §§1&2 and 15 U.S.C. §14; (VI) exclusive dealing with CPGs in the FSI market in violation of 15 U.S.C. §§1&2 and 15 U.S.C. §14; (VII) bundling in violation of 15 U.S.C. §§1&2 and 15 U.S.C. §14; and (VIII) tying in violation of 15 U.S.C. §1 and 15 U.S.C. §14. Valassis also alleged state law claims under (IX) the Michigan Antitrust Reform Act, (X) the California Cartwright Act, (XI) the California Unfair Trade Practices Act, (XII) the common law of unfair competition, and (XIII)-(XVI) the common law of tortious interference.Judge Tarnow, to whom the case was then assigned, dismissed Valassis’ bundling and tying claims (Counts VII and VIII) and later transferred the suit to the Southern District of New York. (Docs. 60; 115).Valassis has confirmed that it is no longer pursuing its FSI-related claims. (Doc. 131; Oct. 20, 2017 Tr. at 4:9-11). The Court accordingly dismisses Counts III, VI, and XI. With respect to the remaining claims, News’s motion will be granted with respect to so-called predatory bidding allegations and otherwise denied.THE UNDISPUTED FACTSThe following facts are undisputed except where otherwise noted. The Court has drawn all reasonable inferences in favor of Valassis, as the nonmovant. See Costello v. City of Burlington, 632 F.3d 41, 45 (2d Cir. 2011).Both Valassis and News are in the business of selling ISPs, in-store promotions, to CPGs. (Def. 56.1 1; Pl. 56.1 Resp. 1). ISP providers place such things as shelf signs and coupon machines into retail stores. (Id.). To place ISPs into retail stores, ISP providers must obtain contracts with individual retailers. (Pl. 56.1 25; Def. 56.1 Resp. 25). CPGs then purchase these ISPs from the ISP providers and use them to advertise CPG products in the retail stores. (Def. 56.1 1; Pl. 56.1 Resp. 1).News’s Alleged Anticompetitive ConductNews entered the ISP market in 1997 and has been the dominant player in the market since its entry. (Pl. 56.1
24, 31, 35; Def. 56.1 Resp.
