NCTA, Chamber of Commerce Urge SCOTUS to Hear Comcast 7th Circuit Appeal

dismissal of antitrust claims against Comcast (see 2002260020). In Supreme Court docket 20-319 amicus briefs Tuesday, they urged the court to hear Comcast's appeal. Businesses should be able to refuse to deal with others if there's a rational, pro-competitive purpose, and the subjective balancing test adopted by the 7th Circuit would cost businesses certainty and have them face costly antitrust litigation, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce said. It and the other amicus filers said multiple other circuit courts have said refusals to deal with middlemen are predominantly pro-competitive. NCTA said the 7th Circuit decision starts out noting the pro-competitive benefits of advertising interconnects but then turns and expresses doubt about their legality, "interjecting irrelevant and mistaken dicta that underscore the decision’s clear legal errors." There are situations that might justify penalization of a monopolist's unilateral refusal to deal, but "this case is not one of them," seven antitrust and economic academics said. The 7th's decision is "out of step" with generally accepted academic views of the best route for antitrust enforcement, as it seems to accept at face value Viamedia's arguments that Comcast had a duty to deal with it. WLF said SCOTUS' 1985 Aspen Skiing decision, that ending a joint venture without a legitimate business reason could be a case of illegal monopolization, should be overruled, as it "remains an evergreen source of mischief for the lower courts."