Essential facilities doctrine
| Competition law |
|---|
 |
| Basic concepts |
| Anti-competitive practices |
|
| Enforcement authorities and organizations |
 | This article includes a list of general references, but it lacks sufficient corresponding inline citations. (August 2009) |
The essential facilities doctrine (sometimes also referred to as the essential facility doctrine) is a
The doctrine has its origins in
Overview
Under the essential facilities doctrine, a
- control of the essential facility by a monopolist
- a competitor’s inability to practically or reasonably duplicate the essential facility
- the denial of the use of the facility to a competitor; and
- the feasibility of providing the facility to competitors
The
These elements are difficult for potential plaintiffs to establish for several reasons. It is quite difficult for a plaintiff to demonstrate that a particular facility is "essential" to entry into and/or competition within the
Development
The first notable case to address the anti-competitive implications of an essential facility was the Supreme Court's judgment in United States v. Terminal Railroad Association, 224 U.S. 383 (1912).[2] A group of railroads controlling all railway bridges and switching yards into and out of St. Louis prevented competing railway companies from offering transportation to and through that destination. The court held it to be an illegal restraint of trade.[3]
Similar decisions include,
- Associated Press v. United States, 326 U.S. 1 (1945), in which the Supreme Court found that the Associated Press bylaws which limited membership and therefore access to copyrighted news services violated the Sherman Act.
- In The Lorain Journalwas the only local business doing news and advertisements in town. The case was that refusing to place an ad for the customers of a small radio station was a Sherman Act violation. In the end, the court accepted an offer to simply accept the advertisements.
- Otter Tail Power Co. v. United States, 410 U.S. 366, 377-79 (1973), in which the Supreme Court found that Otter Tail, an electrical utility which sold electricity at both directly to consumers and to municipalities who resold to consumers, violated the Sherman Act by refusing to supply electricity at wholesale, instead serving customers directly itself.
- Sherman Act by refusing to honor vouchers and ski lifttickets after it had previously done so.
- RFK Stadium, the essential facilities doctrine was not met.
Application of the doctrine
There is controversy about what exactly constitutes an "essential facility". While the doctrine has most frequently been applied to natural monopolies such as utilities and owners of transportation facilities, it has also been applied[specify] in situations involving intellectual property. For example, it is possible for a court to apply the doctrine in a case where one competitor refuses to sell materials protected by copyright or patent to potential competitors.
See also
Notes
- ^ Abbott B. Lipsky, Jr. & J. Gregory Sidak, Essential Facilities, 51 Stan. L. Rev. 1187, 1190–91 (1999).
- ^ Abbott B. Lipsky, Jr. & J. Gregory Sidak, Essential Facilities, 51 Stan. L. Rev.]] 1187, 1189–91 (1999).
- ^ 224 U.S. 383 (1912), at 409-10
References
Sullivan, E. Thomas, and
External links
- Robert Pitofsky, The Essential Facilities Doctrine Under United States Antitrust Law, 70 Antitrust L.J. 443 (2002).
- Brief explanation of the doctrine from the International Telecommunication Union [dead link]
- Article on the doctrine from the Competition Commission of South Africa [dead link]