Pacific Bell Telephone Co., Dba At&t California v. Linkline Communications, Inc.

Summary

The Court held that a plaintiff cannot maintain a Sherman Act § 2 price-squeeze claim when the defendant has no antitrust duty to deal at wholesale and its retail pricing does not satisfy the requirements for predatory pricing. It also held that the plaintiffs’ changed litigation position did not moot the case because the parties sought different relief and the plaintiffs had not unequivocally abandoned their price-squeeze theory. The Court reversed and remanded, leaving the sufficiency of the amended complaint and permission for further amendment to the District Court. Justice Breyer, joined by Justices Stevens, Souter, and Ginsburg, concurred in the judgment. He would accept the plaintiffs’ concession, vacate and remand, and reject the price-squeeze theory in this regulated setting without resolving broader questions about unregulated firms.