Yes. JTC has enough evidence to go to trial. Normally, you'd be happy if your competitors decided to charge high prices, because you could just charge a little less and get all their customers. But JTC claimed it was hurt because its competitors got the asphalt suppliers to stop selling to it. At first, it seems weird that a supplier would agree to this and lose a customer. But it makes perfect sense if the competitors were secretly paying the supplier extra as a reward for helping them crush JTC. The evidence of the competitors paying higher prices, plus the suppliers' fake excuses, are strong clues that a jury should get to decide if there was an illegal conspiracy.

Yes, a group of regular people could reasonably think that JTC was hurt by a boycott planned by the accused road-fixing companies. The clues, like a history of cheating in the industry, suspicious asphalt prices, and fake excuses for not selling to JTC, suggest the asphalt makers were paid by the road-fixing companies to help their illegal agreement by boycotting JTC. This supports JTC's main claim. But for JTC's other claims, they need to prove there was an actual agreement, not just that the companies acted the same without talking about it.

Yes. A plaintiff-competitor presents sufficient evidence to survive summary judgment by providing a plausible economic theory of conspiracy supported by circumstantial evidence. A conspiracy among a firm's competitors to raise prices would normally benefit, not injure, the plaintiff. However, JTC alleged injury from a boycott, claiming its competitor applicators enlisted the asphalt producers to cut off its supply. Although it seems economically irrational for producers to support a customer cartel that reduces demand, it becomes plausible if the producers are coerced or, more likely, compensated for policing the cartel. Here, evidence that producers charged cartel members supracompetitive prices, combined with their pretextual reasons for refusing to sell to JTC, supports an inference that they were compensated for participating in the boycott. This circumstantial evidence is sufficient for a rational jury to find that the applicator defendants organized a boycott against JTC, making summary judgment inappropriate.

Yes, a rational jury could conclude that JTC was the victim of a boycott organized by the applicator defendants. The evidence presented, including the history of collusion in the industry, the suspicious pricing behavior of producers, and the pretextual reasons given for refusing to sell to JTC, could lead a jury to infer that the producers were compensated by the applicators for shoring up the cartel by boycotting JTC. This supports JTC's Section 1 claim. However, JTC's Section 2 claims require proof of an agreement to proceed to trial, as purely tacit collusion is not sufficient under current antitrust law.

JTC Petroleum Co. v. Piasa Motor Fuels, Inc.

Case Podcast

Rule of Law:

The Legal Principle

Facts:

Procedural Posture:

How It Got Here

Issue:

Legal Question at Stake

Opinions:

Majority, Concurrences & Dissents

Analysis:

Why This Case Matters

Gunnerbot