Enbridge Inc. successfully defended against Ducere LLC’s antitrust lawsuit, with a federal judge dismissing the claims accusing Enbridge of killing a pipeline terminal project to preserve its monopoly on crude oil transportation services in the Chicago area.

U.S. District Judge April M. Perry ruled Monday that Ducere, which had invested $11 million in a project to transport crude oil via barges from a Chicago-area pipeline, failed to prove its monopolization claims against Enbridge. Ducere alleged that Enbridge, alongside ExxonMobil and Mustang Pipe Line LLC, had colluded to prevent access to crucial oil pipelines, thereby maintaining control over crude oil transportation services to southern Midwest and Gulf Coast refineries.

The case centered on Ducere’s proposal to build a terminal on a canal in Chicago, linking it to Mustang's pipeline, which moves crude oil south from the Chicago area. The terminal would have enabled Ducere to transport Canadian crude oil via barges. However, after negotiations, Mustang backed out of the deal, prompting Ducere to blame Enbridge for undermining the project.

Judge Perry found that Ducere did not adequately establish that Enbridge’s conduct was anticompetitive. She pointed out that there are several alternative pipeline routes from Canada to refineries in the southern Midwest and Gulf Coast, making it difficult for Ducere to claim that Enbridge’s pipelines were essential for the transportation of crude oil.

The court also dismissed the claim under the "essential facilities" doctrine, which holds that a monopolist can violate antitrust laws by denying access to a facility that is necessary for competition. Judge Perry noted that Ducere had failed to demonstrate that Enbridge’s Mustang pipeline was the only viable route for crude oil transport or that other pipelines could not meet the needs of refineries in the region.

While Ducere was permitted to amend its claims related to the essential facilities doctrine, the court made it clear that the plaintiff would need to substantially strengthen its allegations regarding the market and Enbridge’s role in it. Judge Perry also rejected Ducere’s argument that Enbridge’s actions were driven by a desire to maintain its monopoly, emphasizing that the company’s refusal to deal with Ducere did not imply anticompetitive intent.

Enbridge expressed satisfaction with the ruling, with a spokesperson stating that the facts did not support Ducere’s antitrust claims. Representatives for Ducere did not immediately respond to requests for comment.

The case, Ducere LLC v. Enbridge (US) Inc., is filed under case number 1:24-cv-01217 in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois.