Likewise, the Court has been reluctant to impose antitrust liability on a defendant where competitors are denied access to an input that is deemed essential, or critical, to competition.[1] In these types of cases, antitrust analysis requires a careful application of general legal principles to the specific factual circumstances and regulatory setting. In addition, as discussed with regard to tying claims analyzed under a rule of reason, defendants in a monopolization case will be allowed to assert and prove that the challenged conduct is procompetitive in its overall effect.[2] In sum, there may be some specific circumstances where the Commission could address repair restrictions as violations of antitrust law. In many instances, however, repair restrictions may reduce consumers’ options for obtaining spare parts and repair services in the aftermarket without running afoul of antitrust law.
In order to examine the effects of manufacturers’ repair restrictions on consumers’ repair options, the Commission used a number of its information gathering tools. On March 13, 2019, Commission staff issued a Call for Empirical Research asking members of the public to provide data and research regarding the prevalence of repair restrictions, the impact of such restrictions, and the rationale for such restrictions, among other things.[3] On the same day, staff announced that they were seeking public comments concerning repair restrictions. Staff received 22 responses to its Call for Empirical Research and 68 comments.[4]
The Commission received research submissions and comments from entities and associations representing the full spectrum of interested parties. Commenters included manufacturers and their associations, repair advocates, independent repairers and their associations, and consumers. .
Commission staff also hosted a half-day Workshop to examine further the ways in which manufacturers may limit third-party repairs on July 16, 2019. The Workshop began with opening remarks by Commissioner Christine Wilson,[5] which set the stage for the following panels. The first panel focused on how repair restrictions affect consumers and small businesses, and included presentations by: Walter Alcorn, the Vice President for Environmental Affairs and Industry Sustainability at the Consumer Technology Association, a trade association that
- ↑ Although some lower courts have recognized an “essential facilities” doctrine, the Supreme Court has never recognized such a doctrine, and views it as raising the same concerns as mandating dealing with a competitor. Trinko, 540 U.S. at 410–11. See also Philips N. Am., LLC v. Summit Imaging Inc., 2020 WL 6741966 *6–7 (W.D. Wash. 2020) (dismissing ISO counterclaims against medical equipment manufacturer for monopolization and attempted monopolization, including theories based on refusal to deal and essential facilities).
- ↑ Dentsply, 399 F.3d 191, 196–97 (3d Cir. 2005) (defendant’s business justification was pretextual and did not excuse exclusionary practices).
- ↑ Federal Trade Commission, Call for Empirical Research: Nixing the Fix: A Workshop on repair restrictions, https://www.ftc.gov/nixing-the-fix-call-for-research (“Call for Empirical Research”).
- ↑ See Nixing the Fix: A Workshop on Repair Restrictions, Docket ID FTC-2019-0013, https://www.regulations.gov/docket?D=FTC-2019-0013. Most of the responses to the Call for Empirical Research did not actually consist of empirical research and were more in the nature of comments.
- ↑ Statement of Commissioner Christine S. Wilson Regarding FTC’s Nixing the Fix: A Workshop on Repair Restrictions, https://www.ftc.gov/public-statements/2019/07/statement-commissioner-christine-s-wilson-regarding-ftcs-nixing-fix.
16
