The theory requires control of an essential facility, inability to duplicate it, denial of access, and feasibility of providing it. Trinko questioned the doctrine's existence and declined to recognize or repudiate it.
The Supreme Court has never adopted it.
Alternative Names:
Essential Facility|Bottleneck Doctrine
Why it Matters?
Trinko's observation that the Court has never recognized the doctrine and its emphasis that compelled sharing is in tension with antitrust purposes has made the theory largely unavailable, and courts have dismissed claims resting on it in most circuits. Regulatory access regimes also foreclose the claim under Trinko where an agency already addresses the sharing obligation, which reaches telecommunications and energy contexts.
Frequently Confused with
Related terms
Frequently asked questions
Is the doctrine viable?
What independently forecloses the claim?
