Pacific Bell Telephone Co. v. linkLine Communications, Inc.

Pacific Bell Telephone Co. v. linkLine Communications, Inc., 555 U.S. 438 (2009), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court unanimously held that Pacific Bell d/b/a AT&T did not violate the Sherman Antitrust Act when it charged other Internet providers a high fee to buy space on its phone lines to deliver an Internet connection.[1] The court ruled that where there is no duty to deal at the wholesale level and no predatory pricing at the retail level, a firm is not required to price both of these services in a manner that preserves its rivals’ profit margins.

Pacific Bell Telephone Co. v. linkLine Communications, Inc.
Supreme Court of the United States
Argued December 8, 2008 Decided February 25, 2009
Full case name	Pacific Bell Telephone Co., dba AT&T California, et al. v. linkLine Communications, Inc., et al.
Docket no.	07-512
Citations	555 U.S. 438 (more) 129 S. Ct. 1109; 172 L. Ed. 2d 836
Holding
The Supreme Court held that a "price squeezing" claim cannot be brought under Section 2 of the Sherman Act when the defendant is under no duty to sell inputs to the plaintiff in the first place.
Court membership
Chief Justice John Roberts Associate Justices John P. Stevens · Antonin Scalia Anthony Kennedy · David Souter Clarence Thomas · Ruth Bader Ginsburg Stephen Breyer · Samuel Alito
Case opinions
Majority	Roberts, joined by Scalia, Kennedy, Thomas, Alito
Concurrence	Breyer, joined by Stevens, Souter, Ginsburg
Laws applied
Section 2 of the Sherman Antitrust Act

This case was initiated by Internet service providers (ISP), alleging that incumbent telephone companies that owned infrastructure and facilities needed to provide digital subscriber line (DSL) service monopolized and attempted to monopolize regional DSL market. The ISP's claimed that the telephone companies accomplished this by squeezing the providers' profits by charging them high wholesale price for DSL transport and charging consumers low retail price for DSL Internet service. Ultimately, the court concluded that the case was not moot, as it was not clear whether the providers had unequivocally abandoned their price-squeeze claims; prudential concerns favored answering the question presented.