Federal antitrust laws do not provide a sufficient basis for a retailer to bring antitrust claims against the Philadelphia International Airport's landlord over its efforts to force the company into an exclusive agreement with a third-party beverage vendor, a federal appeals court has ruled.

The precedential decision in Host International v. MarketPlace PHL addressed the novel question of whether the airport's landlord could tie the lease of a commercial space to an agreement to use only one vendor. The unanimous three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit determined that the situation did not raise any antitrust claims, in a decision that upheld a ruling by the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.

Writing for the panel, Judge Paul Matey said that in order to raise an antitrust claim, the concessions company, Host International, needed to show that the defendant's demands were unreasonable and that prices, quantity or quality would be affected in the deal, rather than just the retailer's bottom line. Matey said Host's allegations regarding harm were speculative.