CUSTOMERS WHO have received poor local telephone service as a result of a monopolist’s failure to properly share local networks with less-expensive providers should be permitted to pursue antitrust claims in federal court, the Second Circuit held in a surprise decision last month.
Reversing the Southern District of New York’s dismissal of the case, the Second Circuit revived Law Offices of Curtis V. Trinko v. Bell Atlantic Corp.,[1]� finding that the plaintiff’s complaint alleged direct injury to local phone service customers as a result of Bell Atlantic’s monopolistic behavior. The court rejected defendant’s claim that the dispute had to be resolved through the regulatory process provided for in the Telecommunications Act of 1996, concluding instead that plaintiff-appellant had standing to bring an antitrust claim under �2 of the Sherman Act.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law are third party online distributors of the broad collection of current and archived versions of ALM's legal news publications. LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law customers are able to access and use ALM's content, including content from the National Law Journal, The American Lawyer, Legaltech News, The New York Law Journal, and Corporate Counsel, as well as other sources of legal information.
For questions call 1-877-256-2472 or contact us at [email protected]
