Times-Picayune Publishing Co. v. United States
345 U.S. 594 (1953)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A tying arrangement violates Section 1 of the Sherman Act only if the seller possesses a monopolistic or dominant position in the relevant market for the tying product and a substantial volume of commerce in the tied product is restrained. Furthermore, the challenged practice must involve two distinct products or services that are actually tied together.
Facts:
- The Times-Picayune Publishing Company (Publishing Company) owned and published both the only morning newspaper in New Orleans, the 'Times-Picayune,' and one of two evening newspapers, the 'States.'
- The only competing daily newspaper was the evening 'Item,' published by the Item Company, Ltd.
- In 1935, the Publishing Company began requiring advertisers to purchase classified advertising space as a unit, forcing them to place identical ads in both the Times-Picayune and the States.
- This unit-rate practice was similar to a plan its competitor, the Item Company, had previously used when it published both a morning and evening paper.
- In 1950, the Publishing Company extended this compulsory unit plan to general display advertising, making it impossible for advertisers to buy space in either the morning or evening paper separately.
- While the Times-Picayune was the dominant newspaper in readership, its share of the total general and classified advertising linage in all three New Orleans daily newspapers was approximately 40%.
Procedural Posture:
- The United States filed a civil antitrust suit against the Times-Picayune Publishing Company in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana.
- The government's motion for partial summary judgment to have the unit contracts declared per se illegal was denied by the District Court.
- Following a full trial on the facts, the District Court found that the Publishing Company's unit contracts violated both Sections 1 and 2 of the Sherman Act.
- The District Court entered an injunction prohibiting the Publishing Company from enforcing its unit advertising contracts.
- The Times-Picayune Publishing Company appealed the District Court's judgment directly to the U.S. Supreme Court.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a newspaper publisher's requirement that advertisers purchase advertising space as a 'unit' in both its morning and evening newspapers constitute an unreasonable restraint of trade or an attempt to monopolize under Sections 1 and 2 of the Sherman Act?
Opinions:
Majority - Mr. Justice Clark
No. The Publishing Company's unit advertising plan does not violate the Sherman Act because the government failed to prove the company held a dominant position in the relevant market for newspaper advertising, which is a required element of an unlawful tying arrangement under Section 1. The government also failed to prove the specific intent required for an attempt to monopolize claim under Section 2. The essence of an illegal tying agreement is the exploitation of a dominant position in one market (the 'tying' product) to expand into another (the 'tied' product). For a tying arrangement to be an unreasonable restraint of trade under the Sherman Act, the seller must possess market dominance over the tying product and a substantial volume of commerce in the tied product must be affected. Here, the relevant market is not the morning newspaper market, where the Times-Picayune has a monopoly, but the overall newspaper advertising market in New Orleans. In that broader market, the Times-Picayune's 40% share does not constitute dominance. Furthermore, the Court questioned whether advertising space in a morning paper and an evening paper are truly distinct products, suggesting that advertisers view them as fungible means of reaching customer potential, making the rationale of tying cases inapplicable. As for the Section 2 claim, the record does not show a specific intent to destroy competition; rather, the unit plan was adopted for legitimate business reasons, such as counteracting a competitor's similar plan and reducing overhead costs.
Dissenting - Mr. Justice Burton
Yes. The Publishing Company’s unit plan violates the Sherman Act by using its monopoly power in one market to restrain competition in another. The majority incorrectly defines the relevant market. The Times-Picayune holds a complete and conceded monopoly over the market for morning newspaper advertising in New Orleans. It illegally leverages this power in the distinct, 'tying' market to force advertisers to purchase space in its evening paper, the 'tied' product. This action directly and unreasonably restrains competition between its evening paper, the States, and the independent evening paper, the Item, in violation of the principles established in cases like United States v. Griffith.
Analysis:
This decision significantly clarified and arguably narrowed the application of the per se rule against tying arrangements under the Sherman Act. It established that a plaintiff must rigorously define the relevant market and prove the defendant's dominance within that specific market, demonstrating that a monopoly in a sub-market does not automatically constitute dominance for antitrust purposes. The case also introduced the requirement that the tying and tied items be distinct products, adding another hurdle for plaintiffs. This ruling made tying cases more complex and fact-intensive, shifting away from a simple per se analysis and giving defendants more avenues to argue their conduct is lawful by defining the relevant market more broadly.
Unlock the full brief for Times-Picayune Publishing Co. v. United States