Verizon Communications Inc. v. Law Offices of Curtis v. Trinko, LLP (540 U.S. 398)
U.S. Supreme Court · decided January 13, 2004 · Supreme Court Database (Spaeth)
- Citation
- 540 U.S. 398 · 124 S. Ct. 872
- Decided
- January 13, 2004
- Term
- October Term 2003
- Vote
- 9–0
- Majority author
- Justice Scalia
- Issue area
- Economic Activity
- Disposition
- Reversed and remanded
- Outcome
- Petitioning party won
- Ideological direction
- Conservative
Opinion excerpt
Justice Scalia delivered the opinion of the Court. The Telecommunications Act of 1996, Pub. L. 104-104, 110 Stat. 56, imposes certain duties upon incumbent local telephone companies in order to facilitate market entry by competitors, and establishes a complex regime for monitoring and enforcement. In this case we consider whether a complaint alleging breach of the incumbent’s duty under the 1996 Act to share its network with competitors states a claim under § 2 of the Sherman Act, 26 Stat. 209. Petitioner Verizon Communications Inc. is the incumbent local exchange carrier (LEC) serving New York State. Before the 1996 Act, Verizon, like other incumbent LECs, enjoyed an exclusive franchise within its local service area. The 1996 Act sought to “uproo[t]” the incumbent LECs’ monopoly and to introduce competition in its place. Verizon Communications Inc. v. FCC, 535 U. S. 467, 488 (2002). Central to the scheme of the Act is the incumbent LEC’s obligation under 47 U. S. C. § 251(c) to share its network with competitors, see AT&T Corp. v. Iowa Utilities Bd., 525 U. S. 366, 371 (1999), including provision of access to individual elements of the network on an “unbundled” basis. § 251(c)(3). New entrants, so-called competitive LECs, resell these unbundled network elements (UNEs), recombined with each other or with elements belonging to the LECs. Verizon, like other incumbent LECs, has…
Excerpt of a 30,156-character opinion. The full text and citation network load in the interactive viewer above.