This educational guide is based on the linked primary sources. It is not a Court publication, is not affiliated with the Court, and is not legal advice.
In brief
Overview
According to Verizon Communications Inc. (Petitioner), according to Verizon Communications Inc. (Petitioner), verizon argues that the Court has never recognized a Section 2 duty for a monopolist to turn over its sales to rivals at specially discounted prices, i.e., a duty to dismantle itself.
The Court states that there is no Section 2 duty on the merits to turn over sales to a rival, noting that Section 2 does not condemn mere size and does not compel competition.
Background and question before the Court
Justice Souter asked whether the Court was modifying the remedy by granting a sole remedy, indicating concern about the effect of any modification.
What each side argues
Verizon Communications Inc. (Petitioner)
According to Verizon Communications Inc. (Petitioner), according to Verizon Communications Inc. (Petitioner), verizon contends that Section 2 does not impose a duty for a monopolist to dismantle itself by sharing assets at discounted prices.
Verizon argues that consumers in Trinko’s position have standing and that the Illinois Brick doctrine does not bar the claim.
According to Verizon, verizon suggests that Trinko could have sued AT&T, and that AT&T would have blamed Verizon for any failure.
Law Offices of Curtis V. Trinko, LLP. (Respondent)
Source-limited. The record does not yet support a complete account.
What happened at oral argument
Appearances: Richard G. Taranto, Esq., for the petitioner; Theodore B. Olson, Esq., Solicitor General (United States amicus supporting the petitioner); Donald B. Verrilli, Jr., Esq., for the respondent.
What the Court decided
Why it matters
The case examines whether antitrust law requires a monopolist to share its network with competitors, a question that could shape competition in the telecommunications industry.
The Court’s view that Section 2 does not compel competition highlights the importance of the Telecommunications Act and other regulatory frameworks in governing monopoly behavior.
Terms to know
No glossary terms are available for this guide.
Primary sources
Read the source materials on the official site or open the immutable repository copy used for this guide.
- 6e3706e7e2078fb596c4-r1-5cf32219d7b3d8e9.pdforal argument transcript
Guide generated September 20, 2026. Automated validation accepted this version.