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 Weyerhaeuser Company, the case concerns whether the Brooke Group standards for predatory pricing should also apply to alleged predatory bidding by a buyer.
Weyerhaeuser argues that its pricing conduct deliberately pushed the log market up through a variety of mechanisms, harming the respondent.
According to Weyerhaeuser, adjusting for Weyerhaeuser’s below‑market transfer prices shows that the Longview mill ran at a loss for a significant part of the alleged predation period.
Background and question before the Court
According to Weyerhaeuser Company, the central legal question is whether the Brooke Group test for predatory pricing should also be applied to claims of predatory bidding by a buyer.
What each side argues
Weyerhaeuser Co. (Petitioner)
According to Weyerhaeuser Company, weyerhaeuser contends that the Brooke Group test applies because its four key underpinnings fully apply here.
According to Weyerhaeuser, its pricing conduct deliberately and artificially pushed the market up through a variety of mechanisms.
According to Weyerhaeuser, when adjusted for below‑market transfer prices to the Longview mill, the mill ran at a loss for a significant part of the alleged predation period.
According to Petitioner, creating a separate overbuying claim that relies on price impact would undercut the certainty prescribed by the Brooke Group standard.
What happened at oral argument
Justice Stevens asked whether the jury was instructed that finding predatory price cutting alone suffices for a Section 2 violation.
Justice Stevens later asked whether, given proof of monopoly power, intent, and anticompetitive acts, the anticompetitive act itself must constitute a Sherman Act violation.
According to Justice Alito, justice Alito questioned how Weyerhaeuser could satisfy the recoupment prong given its lack of market power and new mills entering the market.
Justice Alito asked whether, without the Brooke Group approach, the jury should be asked to follow the instructions currently proposed in this case.
Chief Justice Roberts asked whether the hypothetical scenario described by Justice Stevens constituted “aggressive bidding” or merely “bidding higher than a rival can afford.”
Justice Ginsburg asked who proposed the jury instruction at issue in this case.
- [1] 3c0b31b23b9df19e55d0-r1-f1be196ff4b567ee.pdf, p. 4
- [2] 3c0b31b23b9df19e55d0-r1-f1be196ff4b567ee.pdf, p. 21
- [3] 3c0b31b23b9df19e55d0-r1-f1be196ff4b567ee.pdf, p. 47
- [4] 3c0b31b23b9df19e55d0-r1-f1be196ff4b567ee.pdf, p. 36
- [5] 3c0b31b23b9df19e55d0-r1-f1be196ff4b567ee.pdf, p. 20
- [6] 3c0b31b23b9df19e55d0-r1-f1be196ff4b567ee.pdf, p. 37
What the Court decided
Why it matters
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.
- 3c0b31b23b9df19e55d0-r1-f1be196ff4b567ee.pdforal argument transcript
Guide generated September 21, 2026. Automated validation accepted this version.