“The Seventh Circuit clearly understood the parallels with Amex,” Burke said. “This is precisely the type of two-sided transaction platform the high court described.”
Viamedia’s Counter: Market Definition Is Irrelevant
Viamedia’s counsel, James Webster II of Kellogg Hansen Todd Figel & Frederick PLLC, countered that the two-sided market question is neither relevant nor necessary for the case to proceed. He argued that the Seventh Circuit had already determined Viamedia provided sufficient evidence for its monopolization claims to survive summary judgment, rendering Comcast’s framing moot.
“We’re here because the Seventh Circuit remanded this case for trial,” Webster stated. “Comcast’s attempt to reframe the market definition as two-sided is an attempt to relitigate issues that have already been decided.”
Webster also dismissed Comcast’s claims that Viamedia altered its market definition, calling such assertions “baseless” and asserting that Viamedia has consistently maintained its position throughout the litigation.
The Antitrust Claims at Stake
Viamedia’s lawsuit accuses Comcast of abusing monopoly power to dominate spot cable advertising sales in several markets. The dispute arose after Comcast declined to renew its contract with Viamedia in 2012, opting to use its own subsidiary, Comcast Spotlight, for ad sales.
