Trinko holds there is generally no antitrust duty to deal with competitors. The narrow Aspen Skiing exception may apply where a firm terminated a voluntary profitable course of dealing to sacrifice short-term profits.
Terminating an existing relationship is the key fact.
Alternative Names:
Unilateral Refusal to Deal|Duty to Deal
Why it Matters?
Termination of prior dealing is what distinguishes the narrow exception from a refusal to initiate, since Aspen Skiing involved abandoning a profitable existing arrangement while Trinko involved refusing to create a new one, and courts have confined the exception accordingly. Evidence that the refusal served a legitimate business purpose, including credit risk or capacity constraints, defeats the short-term sacrifice inference.
Frequently Confused with
Related terms
Frequently asked questions
What distinguishes the Aspen Skiing exception?
What defeats the inference?
