- Lack of Direct Evidence: The complaint relies heavily on “information and belief” rather than concrete evidence of explicit no-carry agreements
- Economic Justification: Fox’s bundling of channels serves legitimate business purposes, as acknowledged inUnited States v. Microsoft Corp., where courts recognized that bundling can reflect efficiency gains
- Industry Standard: The complaint’s own description of tiered channel packages suggests this represents normal industry practice rather than exclusionary conduct
Sherman Act Section 2 Claims (Monopolization)
To prove monopolization under Section 2, Newsmax must show: (1) Fox possesses monopoly power in the relevant market, and (2) Fox willfully acquired or maintained that power through exclusionary conduct rather than superior products or business acumen. St. Luke’s Hosp. v. ProMedica Health Sys., 8 F.4th 479, 486 (6th Cir. 2021).
While Fox’s market dominance seems clear, proving willful maintenance through exclusionary conduct faces obstacles:
