R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. v. Philip Morris Inc.

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that Phillip Morris offering retailers discounts in exchange for advantageous advertising space was not exclusive dealing but nonetheless “us[ing] the substantial foreclosure analysis typically used in exclusive dealing cases”
• finding that an alleged 51.3% market share was sufficient to show a defendant’s dominant share
• finding that an alleged 51.3% market share was sufficient to plead a defendant’s dominant share
• providing that allegations of “artificially high” prices and that prices are “higher than necessary” are insufficient on their own to establish supracompetitive prices
• noting that the lowest coverage courts and commentators have found significant is 20 percent and that courts have found agreements covering up to 50 percent of the market to not be substantial
• collecting cases and noting that “[c]ourts have condemned provisions involving foreclosure as low as 24% while provisions involving foreclosure as high as 50% have been upheld”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).