Monopolization Claims Against In-Flight Internet Provider Dismissed

more+
less-

In Stewart v. Gogo, Inc., 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 51895 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 10, 2013) (Chen, J.), a putative class of airline English: American Airlines Boeing 707 N7574A c...passengers challenged Gogo’s long-term exclusive contracts to provide Internet access connectivity to various domestic airlines under, among other things, Sherman Act Section 2.

The complaint suggested that Gogo’s exclusive contracts with the airlines effectively operated as a wholesale bar preventing the contracting airline from using an Internet access provider other than Gogo on any of its planes.  However, at oral argument, plaintiffs clarified that the typical Gogo contract binds an airline on an aircraft-by-aircraft basis. In other words, where an airline agreed to have an airplane equipped with Gogo for Internet access, that airplane would use only Gogo’s services (and no other company’s) for the ten years. Thus, conceivably, an airline could have some of its airplanes equipped for Gogo’s services but use a different Internet access provider for its other planes.

In dismissing the complaint (but granting leave to amend), the court found that the relevant market could not be limited to North American aircraft that actually provide Internet access, but must take into account the North American aircraft that could be equipped to provide such access, in which case Gogo has only a 16% market share (not 85% or higher as alleged by plaintiffs who focused only on the North American aircraft actually equipped).

The court noted that Plaintiffs had not made any allegations as to why airplanes that could be equipped should not be included in the full range of selling opportunities reasonably open to a competitor. Plaintiffs did not allege, for example, that there are substantial technological or design barriers to installing a competitor’s Internet connectivity services on such planes, nor did they allege that there are substantial financial barriers which prevent competition for these planes.

Photo Credit:  Wikipedia.

[View source.]

Written by:

Published In:

DISCLAIMER: Because of the generality of this update, the information provided herein may not be applicable in all situations and should not be acted upon without specific legal advice based on particular situations.

© Howard Ullman, Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe | Attorney Advertising

Don't miss a thing! Build a custom news brief:

Read fresh new writing on compliance, cybersecurity, Dodd-Frank, whistleblowers, social media, hiring & firing, patent reform, the NLRB, Obamacare, the SEC…

…or whatever matters the most to you. Follow authors, firms, and topics on JD Supra.

Create your news brief now - it's free and easy »

All the intelligence you need, in one easy email:

Great! Your first step to building an email digest of JD Supra authors and topics. Log in with LinkedIn so we can start sending your digest...

Sign up for your custom alerts now, using LinkedIn ›

* With LinkedIn, you don't need to create a separate login to manage your free JD Supra account, and we can make suggestions based on your needs and interests. We will not post anything on LinkedIn in your name.
×
Loading...
×