Supreme Court Docket Report, October Term, 2002 - Number 10

By Miriam R. Nemetz and Robert L. Bronston

Recently the Supreme Court granted certiorari in one case of potential interest to the business community. Amicus briefs in support of the petitioner are due on Thursday, April 24, 2003, and amicus briefs in support of the respondent are due on Monday, May 26, 2003.*

Telecommunications Act of 1996 - Antitrust Violations. The Supreme Court granted certiorari in Verizon Telecommunications, Inc. v. Law Offices of Curtis V. Trinko, LLP, No. 02-682, to decide whether purchasers of local telephone service may bring an antitrust claim against a local telephone service provider based on allegations that the defendant failed to satisfy its obligations under the Telecommunications Act of 1996 (the "1996 Act") to provide competitors with access to local network elements.

The 1996 Act requires telephone companies that formerly held state-sanctioned local monopolies to provide competitors with access to their local network infrastructure. Bell Atlantic (now Verizon), as the incumbent local exchange carrier ("ILEC") in its region, provided competing local exchange carrier ("CLEC") AT&T access to its network through an interconnection agreement approved by the state regulatory authority. Plaintiff Trinko, which purchased local telephone service from AT&T, sued Bell Atlantic in federal district court, contending that it had been damaged because Bell Atlantic had not afforded AT&T sufficient access to its network. Among other claims, Trinko contended that Bell Atlantic's conduct violated Section 2 of the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. 2. The district court granted Bell Atlantic's motion to dismiss, rejecting Bell Atlantic's argument that the plaintiff lacked standing, but concluding that the complaint did not state a valid Section 2 claim because "[t]he affirmative duties imposed by the Telecommunications Act are not coterminous with the duty of a monopolist to refrain from exclusionary practices." Law Offices of Curtis V. Trinko, LLP v. Bell Atlantic Corp., 123 F. Supp. 2d 738, 742 (S.D.N.Y. 2000).

The Second Circuit reversed. Law Offices of Curtis V. Trinko v. Bell Atlantic Corp., 305 F.3d 89 (2002). The court of appeals agreed with the district court that the plaintiff had antitrust standing. Id. at 107. It also agreed that a plaintiff cannot state an antitrust claim simply by alleging that the defendant has violated its duties under the 1996 Act. Nonetheless, the court concluded, the allegations in the complaint...