October Term 2008 · Docket 07-512
Does a margin-based price squeeze prove antitrust liability?
Pacific Bell seeks reversal of a Ninth Circuit judgment. LinkLine seeks vacatur and remand. The dispute centers on antitrust liability standards.
Verified source milestones
- — An official oral-argument transcript was verified.
The arguments, in order
This case may have been argued more than once. Each entry below uses that session's official transcript. Later arguments do not erase earlier ones.
Argument 1 ·
What happened at the argument
Aaron Panner argued for Pacific Bell. He cited Trinko and Brooke. He urged reversal of the Ninth Circuit decision.
Ms. Maynard argued for LinkLine. She warned of two possible outcomes. She emphasized the margin-based price squeeze theory.
Justice Souter questioned the duty to deal. He asked about regulatory participation. He distinguished this case from future cases.
Justice Breyer asked about regulation. He referenced Judge Hand's opinion. He explored the absence of regulation.
Read the official transcript for this argument · Official argument details
Sources used for this argument breakdown
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 10, lines 41-11 — Transcript, file page 10, lines 41-11
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 10, lines 5-7 — Transcript, file page 10, lines 5-7
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 11, lines 37-11 — Transcript, file page 11, lines 37-11
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 12, lines 17-21 — Transcript, file page 12, lines 17-21
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 12, lines 37-47 — Transcript, file page 12, lines 37-47
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 13, lines 27-15 — Transcript, file page 13, lines 27-15
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 19, lines 21-49 — Transcript, file page 19, lines 21-49
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 28, lines 37-5 — Transcript, file page 28, lines 37-5
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 19-29 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 19-29
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 31-37 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 31-37
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 7-17 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 7-17
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 41, lines 37-11 — Transcript, file page 41, lines 37-11
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 25-31 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 25-31
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 7-11 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 7-11
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 15-21 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 15-21
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 8, lines 39-43 — Transcript, file page 8, lines 39-43
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 9, lines 21-27 — Transcript, file page 9, lines 21-27
A citizen's guide to the whole case
What this case is about
Pacific Bell Telephone Company and LinkLine Communications dispute antitrust liability. Pacific Bell argues the lower court erred. LinkLine argues the lower court acted correctly. The Court must resolve the legal standard.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 19, lines 21-49 — Transcript, file page 19, lines 21-49
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 28, lines 37-5 — Transcript, file page 28, lines 37-5
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 19-29 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 19-29
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 41, lines 37-11 — Transcript, file page 41, lines 37-11
How the case got here
The Supreme Court heard oral argument in this case on December 8, 2008.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 7-17 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 7-17
What each side wants
Pacific Bell wants the Supreme Court to reverse the Ninth Circuit decision.
LinkLine wants the Supreme Court to vacate the decision and remand the case.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 19, lines 21-49 — Transcript, file page 19, lines 21-49
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 28, lines 37-5 — Transcript, file page 28, lines 37-5
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 19-29 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 19-29
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 41, lines 37-11 — Transcript, file page 41, lines 37-11
What each side says
Pacific Bell argues unilateral pricing decisions do not create antitrust liability.
LinkLine argues a margin-based price squeeze supports an antitrust claim.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 19, lines 21-49 — Transcript, file page 19, lines 21-49
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 28, lines 37-5 — Transcript, file page 28, lines 37-5
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 19-29 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 19-29
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 41, lines 37-11 — Transcript, file page 41, lines 37-11
What the justices asked
Justice Souter asked if a duty to deal supports a price squeeze theory.
Justice Breyer asked if regulation is required for a price squeeze claim.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 10, lines 41-11 — Transcript, file page 10, lines 41-11
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 10, lines 5-7 — Transcript, file page 10, lines 5-7
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 11, lines 37-11 — Transcript, file page 11, lines 37-11
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 12, lines 17-21 — Transcript, file page 12, lines 17-21
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 12, lines 37-47 — Transcript, file page 12, lines 37-47
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 13, lines 27-15 — Transcript, file page 13, lines 27-15
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 31-37 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 31-37
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 25-31 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 25-31
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 7-11 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 7-11
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 15-21 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 15-21
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 8, lines 39-43 — Transcript, file page 8, lines 39-43
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 9, lines 21-27 — Transcript, file page 9, lines 21-27
Why it matters
The outcome defines antitrust liability for vertically integrated firms. It clarifies the legal standard for price squeeze claims. It impacts competition in telecommunications markets.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 19, lines 21-49 — Transcript, file page 19, lines 21-49
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 28, lines 37-5 — Transcript, file page 28, lines 37-5
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 19-29 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 19-29
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 41, lines 37-11 — Transcript, file page 41, lines 37-11
What happens next
This article currently covers the argument record. Use the official docket link for later case activity.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 10, lines 41-11 — Transcript, file page 10, lines 41-11
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 10, lines 5-7 — Transcript, file page 10, lines 5-7
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 11, lines 37-11 — Transcript, file page 11, lines 37-11
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 12, lines 17-21 — Transcript, file page 12, lines 17-21
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 12, lines 37-47 — Transcript, file page 12, lines 37-47
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 13, lines 27-15 — Transcript, file page 13, lines 27-15
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 31-37 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 31-37
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 7-17 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 7-17
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 25-31 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 25-31
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 7-11 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 7-11
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 15-21 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 15-21
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 8, lines 39-43 — Transcript, file page 8, lines 39-43
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 9, lines 21-27 — Transcript, file page 9, lines 21-27
Official Court provenance
Official docket and case history · Official Supreme Court oral-argument detail page
Title and summary sources
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 19, lines 21-49 — Transcript, file page 19, lines 21-49
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 28, lines 37-5 — Transcript, file page 28, lines 37-5
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 19-29 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 19-29
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 41, lines 37-11 — Transcript, file page 41, lines 37-11
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 19, lines 21-49 — Transcript, file page 19, lines 21-49
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 28, lines 37-5 — Transcript, file page 28, lines 37-5
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 19-29 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 19-29
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 41, lines 37-11 — Transcript, file page 41, lines 37-11
Revision history
- Revision 1 · Official Transcript ·
Correction: Rewritten to the concise citizen-facing editorial standard.
- Revision 2 · Official Transcript ·
Correction: Migrated to the dated official Court activity contract without model use.