Competing Refusal-To-Deal Tests At 7th, 9th Circs.

By Ryan Sandrock (October 9, 2019, 3:15 PM EDT) -- "[U]nilateral refusals to deal are almost always lawful"— said then U.S. Circuit Judge Neil Gorsuch on behalf of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit in Novell Inc. v. Microsoft Corp.[1] The Tenth Circuit followed Verizon Commications Inc. v. Law Offices of Curtis V. Trinko LLP,[2] narrowly construed Aspen Skiing Co. v. Aspen Highlands Skiing Corp.,[3] and set up a rigid irrationality requirement requiring as a first step that a refusal to deal plaintiff show that a monopolist lost overall profits as a result of its conduct....

Law360 is on it, so you are, too.

A Law360 subscription puts you at the center of fast-moving legal issues, trends and developments so you can act with speed and confidence. Over 200 articles are published daily across more than 60 topics, industries, practice areas and jurisdictions.


A Law360 subscription includes features such as

  • Daily newsletters
  • Expert analysis
  • Mobile app
  • Advanced search
  • Judge information
  • Real-time alerts
  • 450K+ searchable archived articles

And more!

Experience Law360 today with a free 7-day trial.

Start Free Trial

Already a subscriber? Click here to login

Hello! I'm Law360's automated support bot.

How can I help you today?

For example, you can type:
  • I forgot my password
  • I took a free trial but didn't get a verification email
  • How do I sign up for a newsletter?
Ask a question!