Verizon Communications v. Law Offices of Curtis V. Trinko, LLP
The Law Offices of Curtis V. Trinko were unsatisfied with the quality of their local phone service from AT&T. The firm sued Bell Atlantic, which is now Verizon Communications, because Bell Atlantic had an agreement allowing AT&T to use its local network of wires to connect calls. The agreement was governed by the Telecommunications Act of 1996, which was designed to introduce competition into local phone markets but recognized that it would be too costly for a competitor to create its own connection network. The law required Bell Atlantic to provide AT&T with the same quality access to its network as it provides itself. The Law Offices alleged that Bell Atlantic deliberately provided poor repair services to AT&T customers while giving preferential treatment to its own customers in violation of the Telecommunications Act and Section 2 of the Sherman Act. The district court dismissed the lawsuit, finding insufficient facts to support the allegation that Bell Atlantic willfully acquired or maintained a monopoly. The court of appeals reversed and reinstated the Sherman Act claim, finding it possible that Bell Atlantic willingly sustained its monopoly power by failing to provide AT&T with the required services.
Question Presented:
Whether, in reversing the dismissal of a complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted under Section 2 of the Sherman Act, the court of appeals erred by relying on a
standard of liability that does not require predatory or exclusionary conduct.
