Spectrum Sports, Inc. v. McQuillan

Spectrum Sports, Inc. v. McQuillan
Supreme Court of the United States
Argued November 10, 1992 Decided January 25, 1993
Full case name	Spectrum Sports, Inc., et al v. Shirley McQuillan, et vir, DBA Sorboturf Enterprises
Citations	506 U.S. 447 (more) 113 S. Ct. 884; 122 L. Ed. 2d 247; 1993 U.S. LEXIS 1013
Argument	Oral argument
Case history
Prior	McQuillan v. Sorbothane, Inc., 907 F.2d 154 (9th Cir. 1990); cert. granted, 503 U.S. 958 (1992).
Subsequent	On remand, McQuillan v. Sorbothane, Inc., 23 F.3d 1531 (9th Cir. 1994)
Holding
Spectrum Sports may not be liable for attempted monopolization under § 2 absent proof of a dangerous probability that they would monopolize a relevant market and specific intent to monopolize.
Court membership
Chief Justice William Rehnquist Associate Justices Byron White · Harry Blackmun John P. Stevens · Sandra Day O'Connor Antonin Scalia · Anthony Kennedy David Souter · Clarence Thomas
Case opinion
Majority	White, joined by unanimous
Laws applied
Sherman Antitrust Act, Clayton Act

Spectrum Sports, Inc. v. McQuillan, 506 U.S. 447 (1993), was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States rejected the assertion that attempted monopolization may be proven merely by demonstration of unfair or predatory conduct.^[1] Instead, conduct of a single firm could be held to be unlawful attempted monopolization only when it actually monopolized or dangerously threatened to do so. Thus, the Court rejected the conclusion that injury to competition could be presumed to follow from certain conduct. The causal link must be demonstrated.