United States refusal to dealessential facilitiessherman act section 2

Verizon Communications Inc v Law Offices of Curtis V Trinko LLP

540 U.S. 398 (2004)

JurisdictionUnited States

CourtUnited States Supreme Court

Year2004

StatusBinding authority

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

US v Google LLC (Search Antitrust) No. 1:20-cv-03010 (D.D.C. 2024)

Epic Games Inc v Apple Inc (Supreme Court) Nos. 23-337 and 23-344 (cert. denied Jan. 16, 2024)

Epic Games Inc v Apple Inc 67 F.4th 946 (9th Cir. 2023)

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...