Veteto v. Warden

How later courts describe this case

• recognizing potential violation based on predatory pricing but finding insufficient evidence in case under consideration
• holding AT & T violated section 2 of Sherman Act by refusing to connect MCI to its network, an essential facility
• vacating damages award because damages model did not distinguish between damages based on unlawful versus lawful conduct
• rejecting defendants’ suggestion that a 26-day time limit in an antitrust case was too short and that the limit should have been computed in months, not days
• “it is essential ... that damages reflect only the losses directly attributable to unlawful competition”
• A.T. & T. unlawfully refused to interconnect a long distance competitor with A.T. & T.'s local telephone network
• deliberately bringing administrative actions with the knowledge that the agencies involved lacked the authority to take the desired action constitutes sham activity
• plaintiff must show control of the essential facility by a monopolist