United States Leading Case abuse of dominance

Verizon Communications Inc v Law Offices of Curtis V Trinko LLP

540 U.S. 398 (2004)

JurisdictionUnited States

CourtUS Supreme Court

Year2004

StatusBinding authority

Summary

The Sherman Act does not impose a general duty on monopolists to share facilities with competitors; the essential facilities doctrine is strictly limited.

Key Principle

The Sherman Act does not impose a general duty on monopolists to share their facilities with competitors; the essential facilities doctrine is limited.

Area of Law

competition

Related Cases

ACCC v Pacific National Pty Ltd [2020] FCAFC 77

Full Federal Court considered the test for substantially lessening competition under s.50 CCA in the context of a rail freight acquisition.

ACCC v Yazaki Corporation (2018) 262 CLR 1

HCA upheld record cartel penalties for wire harness market conduct, affirming that penalties must deter contravener and others, considering nature, extent, and duration of cartel.

ACCC v Pfizer Australia Pty Ltd [2018] FCAFC 78

Full Federal Court considered whether Pfizer's patent evergreening strategy in the pharmaceutical market constituted misuse of market power under s 46 of the Competition and Consumer Act.

Ask CommonBench about this case

Get a detailed analysis of Verizon Communications Inc v Law Offices of Curtis V Trinko LLP and how it applies to your situation.

Explain Verizon Communications Inc v L...