Antonetti v. Neven

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• noting that the “plausibility” standard “asks for more than a sheer possibility that a defendant has acted unlawfully.” (quoting Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678, 129 S.Ct. 1937)
• “[T]he core issue is a cable provider’s right to refuse to enable cable boxes it does not control to unscramble its coded signal.”
• “[T]he Complaint lacks any allegation that there have ever been separate sales of set-top boxes and cable services ... in the United States, even in markets where cable providers face competition .... ”
• “[T]he Complaint lacks any allegation that there have ever been separate sales of set-top boxes and cable services . . . in the United States, even in markets where cable providers face competition . . . .”
• “[I]f there is no separate market for the allegedly tied product, there can be no fear of leveraging a monopoly in one market to harm competition in a second market. The second market simply does not exist.”
• cable television boxes are not a separate product from cable television services because, unlike cable modems, which “transmit all available content,” cable television boxes must be “designed to receive the signal from a particular provider, which requires the provider’s cooperation”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).