The heart of the remaining claims involves allegations that Comcast tied its interconnect services—essential for purchasing spot cable ads—to its own ad-rep services, coercing cable distributors into exclusive agreements. Viamedia argues that this behavior constitutes unlawful tying under antitrust law.
Initially, the district court sided with Comcast, finding no anticompetitive conduct. However, the Seventh Circuit reversed parts of that ruling, allowing the monopolization claims to proceed. The Supreme Court declined to review the case.
The Duty-to-Deal Question and Its Removal
Earlier in the litigation, Viamedia pursued a controversial “duty-to-deal” claim, alleging that Comcast had a legal obligation to work with its competitors. While U.S. antitrust law generally does not require companies to do business with rivals, certain exceptions exist. Viamedia later dropped this claim, focusing instead on its tying and monopolization allegations.
Judge Coleman’s Role and Potential Outcomes
U.S. District Judge Sharon Johnson Coleman faces the task of deciding whether Comcast’s platform should be analyzed as one-sided or two-sided and how that impacts Viamedia’s claims. She also must determine whether the evidence presented warrants sending the case to trial.
