The essential facility doctrine provides a basis for imposing antitrust liability for a firm's refusal to provide a rival access to something “essential” for competition in a particular market. For marketers, development of this legal doctrine seems curiously at odds with accepted notions of competition and strategic advantage. Its increasing application suggests its importance. The authors trace the origins of the doctrine from law relating to refusals to deal and analyze its current application in the Federal judiciary. They then discuss implications for public policy and marketing.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Alaska Airlines et al. v. United Airlines (1991), CA 9, No. 980-55162, 90-55163, 10/29/91.
2.
Allied International, Inc. v. International Longshoremen's Association, AFL-CIO (1981), 640 F. 2d 1368.
3.
Amerian Federation of Tobacco Growers v. Neal (1950), 183 F. 2d 869.
4.
American Tobacco Co. v. United States (1946), 328 U.S. 781.
5.
AreedaPhillip (1990), “Essential Facilities: An Epithet in Need of Limiting Principles,”Antitrust Law Journal, 58, 841–53.
6.
Aspen Skiing Co. v. Aspen Highlands Skiing Corp (1985), 472 U.S. 585.
7.
Associated Press v. United States (1945) 326 U.S. 1.
8.
Becker v. Egypt News Co. (1983), 713 F. 2d 363.
9.
Belfore v. New York Times (1987), 826 F. 2d 177, cert. denied (1988).
10.
Berkey Photo, Inc. v. Eastman Kodak Co. (1979), 603 F. 2d 263.
11.
BloomPaul N., MilneGeorge R., and AdlerRobert (1994), “Avoiding Misuse of New Information Technologies: Legal and Societal Considerations,”Journal of Marketing, forthcoming.
12.
BlumenthalWilliam (1990), “Three Vexing Issues Under the Essential Facilities Doctrine: ATM Networks as Illustration,”Antitrust Law Journal, 58, 855–69.
13.
BoudinMichael (1986), “Antitrust Doctrine and the Sway of Metaphor,”The Georgetown Law Journal, 75, 395–422.
14.
Byars v. Bluff City News Co. (1979), 609 F. 2d 843.
15.
City of Mishawaka v. American Electric Power Co. (1981), 616 F. 2d 976, cert. denied, 449 U.S. 1096 (1981).
16.
Consolidated Gas Co. of Florida v. City Gas of Florida (1987), 1987-2 Trade Cases CCH, paragraph 67,741.
17.
Dart Drug Corporation v. Corning Glass Works (1979), 480 F. Supp. 1091.
18.
DavidsonJoe (1992), “FTC Broadens Antitrust Use Of an Old Law,”Wall Street Journal, September 30, B1.
19.
DayGeorge S., MassyWilliam F., and ShockerAllan D. (1978), “The Public Policy Context of the Relevant Market Question,” in Marketing and the Public Interest, CadyJohn F., ed. Cambridge: Marketing Science Institute, Report No. 78-105, 51–67.
20.
DayGeorge, and WensleyRobin (1988), “Assessing Advantage: A Framework for Diagnosing Competitive Superiority,”Journal of Marketing, 52(April), 1–20.
21.
Directory Sales Management Corporation v. Ohio Bell Telephone Co. (1987), 833 F. 2d 706.
22.
DunfeeThomas W., SternLouis W., and SturdivantFrederick D. (1984), “Bounding Markets in Merger Cases: Identifying Relevant Markets,”Northwestern University Law Review, 78(4), 733–73.
23.
Eastern States Retail Lumber Dealers’ Association v. United States (1914), 234 U.S. 600.
24.
Eastman Kodak Co. v. Image Technical Service, Inc. (1992), 112 S.Ct. 2072.
25.
Eastman Kodak Co. v. Southern Photo Materials Co. (1927), 273 U.S. 359.
26.
E.I. du Pont de Nemours & Co. (1980), 96 F.T.C. 650.
27.
Eliason Corporation v. National Sanitation Foundation (1980), 614 F. 2d 126, cert. denied, 449 U.S. 826.
28.
EpsteinRichard A. (1988), “The Public Trust Doctrine,” in Public Choice and Constitutional Economics, GwartneyJames D., and WagnerRichard E., eds. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
29.
Fashion Originators’ Guild of American, Inc. v. FTC (1941), 312 U.S. 457.
30.
Federal Trade Commission v. I du Pont de Nemours & Co (1980), 96 F.T.C. 653.
31.
Fishman v. Estate of Wirtz (1986), 807 F. 2d 520.
32.
Fulton v. Hecht (1978), 580 F. 2d 1243, cert. denied, 440 U.S. 981 (1979).
33.
Gameco, Inc. v. Providence Fruit & Produce Building, Inc. (1952), 194 F. 2d 484, cert. denied 344 U.S. 817.
34.
General Motors Corporation v. FTC (1982), 99 F.T.C. 464.
35.
General Motors (Crash Parts) v. FTC (1982), 3 Trade Reg. Reporter (CCH), paragraph 21,931.
36.
GerberDavid G. (1988), “Rethinking the Monopolist's Duty to Deal: A Legal and Economic Critique of the Doctrine of ‘Essential Facilities,'”Virginia Law Review, 74, 1069–113.
37.
GorinsonStanley M. (1990), “Overview: Essential Facilities and Regulation,”Antitrust Law Journal, 58, 871–86.
38.
Guerin-CalvertMargaret E. (1989), “Vertical Integration as a Threat to Competition: Airline Computer Reservation Systems,” in The Antitrust Revolution, KwokaJohn E., and WhiteLawrence J., eds. Glenview, IL: Scott, Foresman & Co., 338–70.
39.
Hecht v. Pro Football, Inc. (1977), 570 F. 2d 982, cert. denied, 436 U.S. 956 (1978).
40.
HyltonKeith N. (1991), “Economic Rents and Essential Facilities,”Brigham Young University Law Review, 2, 1243–84.
41.
Image Technical Service, Inc. v. Eastman Kodak Co. (1990), 903 F. 2d 612.
42.
KerinRoger A., MahajanVijay, and Rajan VaradarajanP. (1990), Contemporary Perspectives on Strategic Market Planning.Needham Heights, MA: Allyn and Bacon.
43.
Klor's Inc. v. Broadway-Hale Stores, Inc. (1959), 359 U.S. 207.
44.
Kreuzer v. American Academy of Periodontology (1984), 735 F. 2d 1479.
45.
La Peyre v. FTC (1966), 366 F. 2d 117.
46.
Lorain Journal Co. v. United States (1951), 342 U.S. 143.
47.
M & H Tire Co. v. Hoosier Racing Tire Corporation (1984), 733 F. 2d 973.
48.
MCI Communications Corp. v. American Telephone & Telegraph Co. (1983), 708 F. 2d 1081, cert. denied, 464 U.S. 891 (1983).
49.
MilneGeorge R. (1992), “A Marketing Approach for Measuring Product Market Differentiation and Concentration in Antitrust Cases,”Journal of Public Policy & Marketing, 11(Fall), 90–100.
50.
NealeA. (1970), The Antitrust Laws of the U.S.A.: A Study of Competition Enforced by Law.Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
51.
North American Soccer League v. National Football League (1979), 465 F. Supp. 665.
52.
Northern Pacific Railroad v. United States (1958), 356 U.S. 1.
53.
Official Airline Guides, Inc. v. FTC (1980), 630 F. 2d 920, cert. denied, 450 U.S. 917 (1981).
54.
Otter Tail Power Co. v. United States (1973), 410 U.S. 366.
55.
OwenBruce M. (1990), “Determining Optimal Access to Regulated Essential Facilities,”Antitrust Law Journal, 58, 887–94.
56.
Paschall v. Kansas City Star Co. (1984), 727 F. 2d 692, cert. denied, 469 U.S. 872 (1984).
57.
PirainoThomasJr. (1991), “Beyond Per Se, Rule of Reason or Merger Analysis: A New Antitrust Standard for Joint Ventures,”Minnesota Law Review, 76, 1–71.
58.
Pontius v. Children's Hospital (1982), 552 F. Supp. 1352.
59.
RatnerJames R. (1988), “Should There Be an Essential Facility Doctrine?”University of California, Davis Law Review, 21, 327–82.
60.
RebelloKathy, LewynMark, and SchwartzEvan I. (1992), “Did Microsoft Shut the Windows on Competitors?”Business Week (September 28)32–33.
61.
ReiffenDavid, and KleitAndrew N. (1990), “Terminal Railroad Revisited: Foreclosure of an Essential Facility or Simple Horizontal Monopoly,”Journal of Law and Economics, 33, 419–625.
62.
Shapiro v. General Motors Corporation (1979), 472 F. Supp. 636, 644, cert. denied, 451 U.S. 909 (1981).
63.
Silver v. New York Stock Exchange (1963), 373 U.S. 341.
64.
Southern Pacific Communications Co. v. American Telephone and Telegraph Co. (1984), 740 F. 2d 980.
65.
Sperry Rand Corp. v. Nassau Research and Development Associations, Inc. (1957), 152 F. Supp. 91.
66.
SullivanLawrence (1977), Handbook of the Law of Antitrust.St. Paul, MN: West.
67.
Times-Picayune Publishing Co. v. United States (1953), 345 U.S. 594.
68.
Town of Massena v. Niagara Mohawk Power Corporation (1980), 1980-2 Trade Case CCH paragraph 63,526.
69.
TraversArthur H. (1986), “Does a Monopolist Have a Duty to Deal With Its Rivals? Some Thoughts on the Aspen Skiing Case,”University of Colorado Law Review, 57, 727–46.
70.
TroyDaniel E. (1983), “Unclogging the Bottleneck: A New Essential Facility Doctrine,”Columbia Law Review, 83, 441–87.
71.
United Airlines et al. v. Civil Aeronautics Board (1985), 776 F. 2d 1107, petition denied.
72.
United States v. American Telephone & Telegraph Co. (1981), 524 F. Supp. 1336.
73.
United States v. Aluminum Co. of America (1945), 148 F. 2d 416.
74.
United States v. Colgate & Co. (1919), 250 U.S. 300.
75.
United States v. Columbia Steel Co. (1948), 334 U.S. 495.
76.
United States v. Corn Products Refining Co. (1916), 234 F. 2d. 964.
77.
United States v. Griffith (1948), 334 U.S. 100.
78.
United States v. Grinnell Corporation (1966), 384 U.S. 563.
79.
United States v. L.D. Caulk Company (1954), 126 F. Supp. 693.
80.
United States v. Otter Tail Co. (1971), 1971 WL 584 (D. Minn.)
81.
United States v. Terminal Railroad (1912), 224 U.S. 383.
82.
United States Football League v. National Football League (1986), 634 F. Supp. 1155.
83.
WerdenGregory J. (1987), “The Law and Economics of the Essential Facility Doctrine,”Saint Louis University Law Journal, 32, 433–80.
84.
Wholesale Stationers, Inc. v. Pacific Stationary and Printing Co. (1985), 472 U.S. 284.
