Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caDC-13-01229/USCOURTS-caDC-13-01229-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
GameFly, Inc.
Intervenor for Respondent
Postal Regulatory Commission
Respondent
United States Postal Service
Petitioner

Document Text:

United States Court of Appeals 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT

Argued February 19, 2014 Decided April 8, 2014 

No. 13-1229 

UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE, 

PETITIONER

v. 

POSTAL REGULATORY COMMISSION, 

RESPONDENT

GAMEFLY, INC., 

INTERVENOR

On Petition for Review of Orders 

 of the Postal Regulatory Commission 

David C. Belt, Attorney, United States Postal Service, 

argued the cause for the petitioner. Morgan E. Rehrig, 

Attorney, was on brief. Stephan J. Boardman, Attorney, 

entered an appearance.

Jeffrey A. Clair, Attorney, United States Department of 

Justice, argued the cause for the respondent. Stuart F. Delery, 

Assistant Attorney General, Michael S. Raab, Attorney, 

Stephen L. Sharfman, General Counsel, Postal Regulatory 

USCA Case #13-1229 Document #1487356 Filed: 04/08/2014 Page 1 of 15
2 

Commission, R. Brian Corcoran, Deputy General Counsel, 

and Richard A. Oliver, Attorney, were on brief. 

David M. Levy, John F. Cooney and Matthew D. Field

were on brief for intervenor GameFly, Inc. in support of the 

respondent. 

Before: HENDERSON and KAVANAUGH, Circuit Judges, 

and RANDOLPH, Senior Circuit Judge. 

Opinion for the Court filed by Circuit Judge 

HENDERSON. 

KAREN LECRAFT HENDERSON, Circuit Judge: The 

United States Postal Service (USPS) seeks review of three 

orders of the Postal Regulatory Commission (Commission or 

PRC) implementing our mandate in GameFly, Inc. v. Postal 

Regulatory Commission (GameFly I), 704 F.3d 145 (D.C. Cir. 

2013). In GameFly I, the PRC had found that USPS violated 

the proscription of “undue or unreasonable discrimination” in 

39 U.S.C. § 403(c) when it refused to provide to GameFly, 

Inc. (GameFly), a company that rents and sells DVD video 

games by mail, the same special manual processing service 

for first class round-trip letter DVD mailers that USPS 

provided to Netflix, Inc. (Netflix), a company that rents DVD 

movies by mail.1

 Because of the disparate treatment, 

GameFly was forced to use USPS’s more expensive first class 

“flat” mailer service to avoid DVD breakage in transit. We 

upheld the Commission’s finding of discrimination but 

rejected the remedy it adopted—reducing the DVD flat 

service rate—because it left in place unjustified residual 

discrimination in that GameFly was still forced to pay a 

higher rate than Netflix paid to obtain comparable DVD 

 1

“DVD” is an abbreviation for “digital versatile disk’’ or 

‘‘digital video disc.’’ GameFly I, 704 F.3d at 146. 

USCA Case #13-1229 Document #1487356 Filed: 04/08/2014 Page 2 of 15
3 

protection. Accordingly, we remanded for the Commission to 

justify the residual discrimination or eliminate it entirely. On 

remand, the Commission adopted a remedy which equalizes 

the cost of first class letter and flat DVD rates, enabling 

GameFly (or Netflix or any other DVD mailer) to use either 

service at the same cost. We conclude the Commission’s 

decision is consistent with our decision in Gamefly I and with 

the Postal Accountability and Enhancement Act (PAEA), 

Pub. L. No. 109–435, 120 Stat. 3198 (2006). Accordingly, 

we deny USPS’s petition for review. 

I.

 In April 2009, GameFly filed a complaint with the PRC 

alleging that USPS granted preferential rates and terms of 

service to Netflix in violation of 39 U.S.C. § 403(c), which 

provides:

 In providing services and in establishing 

classifications, rates, and fees under this title, the 

Postal Service shall not, except as specifically 

authorized in this title, make any undue or 

unreasonable discrimination among users of the 

mails, nor shall it grant any undue or unreasonable 

preferences to any such user. 

GameFly alleged that USPS routinely hand-processed roundtrip DVD mailers Netflix mailed at the first class one-ounce 

letter rate of $0.44 each, while waiving the customary nonmachineable surcharge for mail that cannot be machineprocessed—but refused to provide the same service to 

GameFly. As a result, to avoid the risk of DVD breakage in 

the automated sorters, GameFly was forced to mail its games 

in DVD flat mailers at the more expensive first class flat rate 

of $0.88 and to use a protective cardboard insert that bumped 

USCA Case #13-1229 Document #1487356 Filed: 04/08/2014 Page 3 of 15
4 

up the mailer to the two-ounce rate, adding another $0.20 to 

the cost. 

In April 2011, the PRC issued an order concluding that 

USPS’s disparate treatment had subjected GameFly to “undue 

or unreasonable discrimination among users of the mails” in 

violation of 39 U.S.C. § 403(c) and imposing a remedy 

pursuant to its authority under section 205 of PAEA, 39 

U.S.C. § 3662(c).2

 Rejecting the two straightforward 

remedies GameFly had suggested—to require that USPS offer 

GameFly the same manual processing at the same rates as 

Netflix or to offer a reduced automation rate for flat DVD 

mailers—the Commission instead directed that USPS (1) 

waive the $0.20 second-ounce rate for DVD flat mailers and 

(2) refrain from imposing the non-machineable surcharge on a 

round-trip first class DVD letter mailer weighing one ounce 

or less. Order on Complaint at 2, Complaint of GameFly, 

Inc., Docket No. C2009-1 (PRC Apr. 20, 2011) (2011 PRC 

Order). The Commission acknowledged that its remedy 

“could still require GameFly to ‘continue to generate more 

than double the contribution per piece than Netflix mail’ ’’ 

 2

Section 205 provides: 

If the Postal Regulatory Commission finds the complaint 

to be justified, it shall order that the Postal Service take 

such action as the Commission considers appropriate in 

order to achieve compliance with the applicable 

requirements and to remedy the effects of any 

noncompliance (such as ordering unlawful rates to be 

adjusted to lawful levels, ordering the cancellation of 

market tests, ordering the Postal Service to discontinue 

providing loss-making products, or requiring the Postal 

Service to make up for revenue shortfalls in competitive 

products).

39 U.S.C. § 3662(c). 

USCA Case #13-1229 Document #1487356 Filed: 04/08/2014 Page 4 of 15
5 

but explained that “ ‘the remaining rate disparity is reasonable 

in light of the differences between the letter-shaped and flatshaped round-trip DVD mailers.’ ’’ GameFly I, 704 F.3d at 

148 (quoting 2011 PRC Order at 115). 

 GameFly filed a petition for review which we granted in 

GameFly I. We found the Commission’s order was arbitrary 

and capricious because it left in place, without adequate 

justification, the very discrimination of which GameFly 

complained: that USPS provided manual processing to 

Netflix but not to GameFly. Without such special handling, 

GameFly was compelled either to pay the higher flat mail rate 

or to switch to letter mail and thereby risk “an epidemic of 

cracked and shattered DVDs.” Id. at 149. Accordingly we 

vacated the PRC’s order and remanded for “an adequate 

remedy,” directing that the PRC “either remedy all 

discrimination or explain why any residual discrimination is 

due or reasonable under § 403.” Id. 

 On remand, after a PRC-ordered settlement conference 

proved unsuccessful, the Commission issued a new remedial 

order. Order on Remand, Complaint of GameFly, Inc., 

Docket No. C2009-1R (PRC June 26, 2013) (Remand Order) 

(JA 269). The Commission first set out three objectives it 

found essential to whatever remedy was adopted: that the 

remedy be (1) effective at redressing the residual 

discrimination, (2) that it be readily enforceable and (3) that it 

be able to be expeditiously implemented. The Commission 

then selected, in the alternative, the only two remedies it 

found met all three of the objectives: 

The Postal Service shall equalize the rates for letterand flat-shaped DVD mail either by: (1) establishing 

new equalized rates for letter-shaped and flat-shaped 

DVD mail; or (2) reducing the price for a two-ounce 

USCA Case #13-1229 Document #1487356 Filed: 04/08/2014 Page 5 of 15
6 

First-Class flat-shaped round-trip DVD mailer to the 

price for a one-ounce First-Class letter-shaped 

round-trip DVD mailer. 

Remand Order at 39; see id. at 35 (“[T]he Commission 

concludes that an equalized rate remedy will be effective, 

enforceable, and can be implemented without unnecessary 

delay.”). The Commission directed that, whichever 

alternative it chose, USPS was to file a notice of price 

adjustment within 30 days of the order and implement the 

change within 45-65 days thereafter. USPS moved for 

reconsideration of the Remand Order and also submitted a 

request to create a new “competitive” mail product for 

DVDs—a single all-purpose “Round-Trip Mailer”—to 

replace the separate first class letter and first class flat roundtrip mailers, which are “market-dominant” products. See

Request of USPS under § 3642 to Create Round-Trip Mailer 

Product at 3, Complaint of GameFly, Inc., Docket No. C2009-

1R (July 26, 2013).3

 The PRC denied reconsideration but 

opened a docket to consider USPS’s new product request. 

 On September 4, 2013, the Commission issued its final 

remedial order. Order Prescribing Remedy, Complaint of 

 3

“A service is ‘market-dominant’ if either (1) the Postal 

Service has achieved a level of market power in providing that 

service that would allow it to raise prices without losing ‘a 

significant level of business,’ [39 U.S.C.] § 3642(b)(1), or (2) it is a 

service covered by the statutory postal monopoly, id. § 3642(b)(2).” 

Newspaper Ass’n of Am. v. Postal Regulatory Comm’n, 734 F.3d 

1208, 1210 (D.C. Cir. 2013). The PRC is charged with ensuring 

that competitive products not be subsidized by market-dominant 

products, that each competitive product cover its own costs and that 

collectively they cover “an appropriate share” of USPS’s 

institutional costs. 39 U.S.C. § 3633(a). 

 

USCA Case #13-1229 Document #1487356 Filed: 04/08/2014 Page 6 of 15
7 

GameFly, Inc., Docket No. C2009-1R (PRC Sept. 4, 2013) 

(Remedy Order) (JA 368). It explained therein that, because 

of the delay posed by multiple parties’ opposition to USPS’s 

new competitive product request combined with “the 

potential complexity of the legal and factual issues” it raised, 

the “appropriate solution” was to prescribe the second 

alternative remedy effective no later than the deadline date.4 

Remedy Order at 4-6. Accordingly, the Commission adopted 

the second of the Remand Order’s alternative rate-based 

remedies, to take effect September 30, 2013: 

[T]he Commission directs the Postal Service to 

equalize the rates for letter- and flat-shaped DVD 

mail by reducing the price for a two-ounce FirstClass flat-shaped round-trip DVD mailer to the price 

for a one-ounce First-Class letter-shaped round-trip 

DVD mailer effective September 30, 2013. 

Remedy Order at 1-2. In announcing the remedy, the 

Commission invoked its “authority under [PAEA section 205] 

to ‘take such action as the Commission considers appropriate 

in order to achieve compliance with the applicable 

requirements and to remedy the effects of any noncompliance 

such as ordering unlawful rates to be adjusted to lawful 

levels.’ ” Remedy Order at 8 (quoting 39 U.S.C. § 3662(c), 

supra note 2) (bracketed insertion added; other alterations 

omitted). 

 4

The PRC concluded that implementing the remedy would not 

cause USPS “material injury” because its new product request 

sought the same rate and effective date, the remedy would not have 

“price cap implications” for USPS and USPS was free to proceed 

with its new product request. Remedy Order at 6-7. On the flip 

side, the PRC concluded implementation would prevent 

“indeterminate” and “unacceptable” delay in redressing the 

discrimination GameFly was then experiencing. Id. at 5. 

USCA Case #13-1229 Document #1487356 Filed: 04/08/2014 Page 7 of 15
8 

 

 USPS timely petitioned for review of the Remand Order, 

the reconsideration denial and the Remedy Order. 

II. 

 USPS challenges the Commission’s remedy on several 

grounds. The court reviews the Commission’s orders 

pursuant to the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), 5 

U.S.C. §§ 701 et seq., and may therefore set them aside if 

they are “arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or 

otherwise not in accordance with law.” GameFly I, 704 F.3d 

at 148 (quoting 5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(A)); see also 39 U.S.C. 

§ 3663 (incorporating APA review standard). In our review, 

we adhere to our “long-standing principle that ‘the breadth of 

agency discretion is, if anything, at [its] zenith when the 

action assailed relates primarily not to the issue of 

ascertaining whether conduct violates the statute, or 

regulations—but rather to the fashioning of . . . remedies and 

sanctions.’ ” Am. Tel. & Tel. Co. v. FCC, 454 F.3d 329, 334 

(D.C. Cir. 2006) (quoting Niagara Mohawk Power Corp. v. 

Fed. Power Comm’n, 379 F.2d 153, 159 (D.C. Cir. 1967)) 

(ellipsis in original). So deferring to the Commission’s 

remedial determination, we reject USPS’s arguments and 

deny its petition for review.5

 

A. GameFly I’s Mandate 

USPS first contends the PRC’s remedy is inconsistent 

with our mandate in GameFly I. See City of Cleveland, Ohio 

 5

Intervenor GameFly also questions USPS’s standing but we 

find USPS adequately demonstrated it has been injured—as well as 

“adversely affected or aggrieved,” 39 U.S.C. § 3663—by the 

PRC’s challenged orders under which it receives less compensation 

for flat DVD mail than previously. 

USCA Case #13-1229 Document #1487356 Filed: 04/08/2014 Page 8 of 15
9 

v. Fed. Power Comm’n, 561 F.2d 344, 346 (D.C. Cir. 1977) 

(“The decision of a federal appellate court establishes the law 

binding further action in the litigation by another body subject 

to its authority. The latter is without power to do anything 

which is contrary to either the letter or spirit of the mandate 

construed in the light of the opinion of (the) court deciding 

the case . . . .”) (quotation mark and footnote omitted). In its 

challenge, USPS attempts to limit the scope of our mandate to 

require that the Commission implement an operational

remedy—i.e., one changing the way that mail is processed—

rather than the rate-based remedy the PRC in fact adopted, 

equalizing the letter and flat rates. USPS argues that in 

Gamefly I, we faulted the PRC’s remedy because it “left in 

place ‘terms of service discrimination,’ i.e., ‘providing 

manual letter processing to Netflix but not GameFly,’ ” and 

that therefore “the price difference between letters and flats 

was irrelevant to the finding of discrimination, which 

concerned the discriminatory terms of service offered for 

DVDs sent as letters.” USPS Br. 37 (quoting GameFly I, 704 

F.3d at 149) (emphases in original). USPS places too much 

emphasis on the isolated language it quotes. 

In GameFly I, we made clear the residual discrimination 

lay in both the services offered and the rates charged therefor. 

We expressly noted the PRC “found that the Postal Service 

had discriminated against GameFly in rates and terms of 

service” and instructed that where it “allows discrimination to 

exist in the postal rate structure, it must explain why that 

discrimination is due or reasonable under § 403(c).” 704 F.3d 

at 147-48 (emphases added). Moreover, our mandate was 

quite broad, directing the PRC on remand to “either remedy 

all discrimination or explain why any residual discrimination 

is due or reasonable under § 403.” Id. at 149 (emphasis 

added). In no wise did we foreclose adopting a rate-based 

remedy. To the contrary, we foresaw that on remand the 

USCA Case #13-1229 Document #1487356 Filed: 04/08/2014 Page 9 of 15
10 

Commission would “surely consider” the remedies GameFly 

had already proposed (and the PRC rejected)—which were 

themselves rate-based remedies, see id. at 147—while noting 

“there may be a range of other possible remedies which 

would withstand appellate review.” 704 F.3d 149 (emphasis 

added). In the end, we rejected the Commission’s chosen 

remedy not because it was rate-based—although it was—but 

because the PRC had not adequately justified what it 

acknowledged was a “ ‘difference in the rates that will be 

paid by Netflix and GameFly under the remedy.’ ” Id. at 148 

(quoting 2011 PRC Order at 115) (emphasis added). 

Contrary to USPS’s arguments, our decision in GameFly I (as 

well as GameFly’s complaint and the 2011 PRC Order) 

focused on rate discrimination and GameFly’s need to “resort 

to [expensive] workarounds to get its DVDs to its customers” 

and to spend “millions annually to avoid the Postal Service’s 

automated letter processing stream.” Id. at 147. The high 

costs of flat mailer services were part and parcel—the direct 

result—of the service discrimination the PRC and this court 

found. See id. at 149 (‘[T]he Commission’s findings establish 

that the Postal Service’s terms of service discrimination 

against GameFly . . . led to the companies’ use of different 

mailers.”); id. at 149 (“[T]he use of different mailers is itself 

the product of the service discrimination.”). Accordingly, we 

conclude that the Commission’s rate based remedy is fully 

consistent both with our decision in GameFly I and with the 

Commission’s remedial authority—and obligation—under 

PAEA to “take such action as . . . appropriate in order to 

achieve compliance with the applicable requirements and to 

remedy the effects of any noncompliance.” 39 U.S.C. 

§ 3662(c) (emphasis added). 

USCA Case #13-1229 Document #1487356 Filed: 04/08/2014 Page 10 of 15
11 

B. Alternative Remedies 

Next, USPS asserts that the PRC was required to choose 

its remedy from among the operational options proposed, any 

one of which would have been effective in eliminating what 

USPS views as the limited discrimination we identified in 

GameFly I. This argument fails from the start given our 

rejection, supra Part II.A, of USPS’s narrow characterization 

of the discrimination that the Commission and the court found 

existed (i.e., as limited to disparate service without regard to 

the high rates GameFly paid as a consequence) and of the 

permissible “range of remedies” therefore available to USPS 

(i.e., as limited to operational remedies only). In any event, 

the Commission reasonably explained why it rejected the six 

operational remedies before it—none of them served all three 

of the Commission’s stated objectives: that the remedy be 

effective, enforceable and readily implemented. See Remand 

Order at 26-35. 

The Commission rejected three of the proposed 

operational remedies as not “effective” because they lacked 

an objective requirement to ensure parity of treatment among 

DVD mailers so as to remedy the unlawful discrimination.6 

 6

See Remand Order at 18-19 (rejecting operational remedy that 

required USPS to process GameFly letters using non-machine 

processing “ ‘[t]o the extent possible and practicable’ and ‘to 

substantially the same degree’ as other DVD mailers’ DVD mail” 

because of the “vagueness of the standard”); id. at 20 (rejecting 

remedy requiring both the non-machinable surcharge on letter DVD 

mail and the second-ounce rate on 2-ounce flats as leaving open 

“possibility that the Postal Service could continue to provide 

manual processing only to Netflix (and not other letter-shaped 

DVD mailers) and still subject all letter-shaped DVDs to the nonmachinable surcharge”); id. at 12, 20-21 (rejecting remedy that 

requires manual handling of all letter-shaped DVDs “subject to 

USCA Case #13-1229 Document #1487356 Filed: 04/08/2014 Page 11 of 15
12 

In contrast, the remedy the Commission selected was 

unequivocally effective in equalizing the playing field, 

thereby eliminating the discrimination—or at least its 

injurious effects. The remaining three operational remedies—

each of which the Commission acknowledged “could at least, 

in theory, be effective,” id. at 21—it also dismissed.7

 The 

Commission concluded each of these remedies was “likely to 

prove prohibitively difficult to enforce,” as USPS had itself 

acknowledged in a May 3, 2013 letter. Id. at 21-22 (USPS 

wrote that it would be “ ‘unrealistic’ ” and “ ‘difficult, if not 

practically impossible, or exceedingly costly, to maintain an 

ongoing enforcement mechanism that would ensure that every 

mailer’s DVD letters will receive exactly the same levels of 

manual processing experienced by every other mailer of DVD 

letters, either locally or nationally’ ”). The Commission 

further reasonably found that any of the proposed operational 

remedies would cause significant and unnecessary delay 

because it would require reopening the docket—given 

USPS’s assertion the record did not reflect recent operational 

changes which affect the formulation of an operational 

 

certain standards” because it “would leave implementation almost 

entirely in the hands of local Postal Service managers” and USPS 

itself warned PRC and GameFly to “expect significant variation in 

actual implementation, depending on local processing decisions”). 

7

See Remand Order at 21-25 (rejecting GameFly’s quondam 

but since-abandoned operational proposals to require “a measurable 

and enforceable level of manual culling and processing of DVD 

mailers sent at machinable letter rates,” id. at 11 (quotation marks 

omitted), or to require that USPS either provide same level of 

manual processing to both Netflix and GameFly or discontinue 

manual processing of Netflix mail altogether; and PRC’s own 

proposal to retain 2011 PRC Order remedy but with an 

“enforcement mechanism to ensure manual processing at a certain 

level,” id. at 12). 

USCA Case #13-1229 Document #1487356 Filed: 04/08/2014 Page 12 of 15
13 

remedy, GameFly’s claim the existing record was inadequate 

and the inherent difficulty of creating an enforceable 

operational remedy—all resulting in “potentially protracted 

remand proceedings” that would only prolong the unlawful 

discrimination and increase the injury to GameFly and other 

DVD mailers. Id. at 25. Given the Commission’s thorough 

and sound explanation for preferring the rate-based remedy it 

chose over the proposed operational remedies, we defer to its 

technical remedial choice.8

 See AT&T Wireless Servs., Inc. v. 

FCC, 365 F.3d 1095, 1099 (D.C. Cir. 2004) (although “[t]he 

court is generally the authoritative interpreter of its own 

remand . . . and . . . owes no deference to the Commission’s 

interpretation of its task on remand[,] . . . [t]o the extent the 

Commission’s explanation on remand encompasses technical 

predictions within its expertise, . . . the court will defer to its 

judgment so long as it is ‘not contrary to law, is rational, has 

support in the record, and is based on a consideration of the 

relevant factors[]’ . . . because ‘greater discretion is given 

administrative bodies when their decisions are based upon 

judgmental or predictive conclusions’ ” (quoting NAACP v. 

FCC, 682 F.2d 993, 997, 1001 (D.C. Cir. 1982)) (alterations 

added; citations omitted)). 

 8

We readily dismiss USPS’s challenge to the PRC’s reliance 

on the three objectives—in particular enforceability and timeliness. 

The Commission adequately explained why it adopted the three 

common-sense objectives, see Remand Order at 14-18, and its 

choices seem to us patently reasonable. Nor do we see merit in 

USPS’s objections to the PRC’s analysis based on the chosen 

objectives. USPS’s suggested enforcement alternatives—the 

lengthy statutory complaint process and scanning a bar code to 

determine the fact of manual processing, see USPS Br. 45-47—do 

not so effectively enforce timely compliance with section 403 or 

ensure equal quality of processing as does the simple upfront ratebased remedy the Commission adopted. 

USCA Case #13-1229 Document #1487356 Filed: 04/08/2014 Page 13 of 15
14 

C. Arbitrariness 

Finally, USPS contends the “equalized rate” the 

Commission chose is arbitrary because (1) it does not respond 

to the discrimination that the PRC and this court found and 

(2) the PRC failed to consider whether the new rate is 

consistent with PAEA’s market-dominant provisions. The 

first contention is easily answered. As we explained above, 

supra Part II.A, the remedy adopted eliminates the 

discriminatory treatment the PRC and the court found—and 

the effects thereof—because it ensures that all mailers will 

receive comparable service at no additional cost. Regarding 

the second assertion, USPS argues that under PAEA the PRC 

could not find the existing rate for flats was “unlawful” 

“without resort to the objectives, factors and policies of 39 

U.S.C. § 3622, which govern the rates for market-dominant 

products.” USPS Br. 52 (citing 39 U.S.C. § 3622(a)) 

(emphasis omitted). As an initial matter, section 3622 on its 

face applies only to the Commission’s fundamental statutory 

duty “by regulation [to] establish . . . a modern system for 

regulating rates and classes for market-dominant products.” 

39 U.S.C. § 3622(a) (emphases added); it does not purport to 

govern the Commission’s action here in adjusting individual 

rates to remedy the effects of discrimination pursuant to its 

duty and authority under 39 U.S.C. § 3662(c). See Remand 

Order at 31 (explaining PRC’s exercise of its section 3662(c) 

authority to resolve discrimination complaint). In any event, 

to whatever extent the Commission was bound to consider the 

statutory factors (as it apparently concedes that it was, see

PRC Br. 40), it reasonably concluded that those “generally 

applicable ratemaking policies” were outweighed by the need 

to afford the complete relief we ordered in GameFly I. See

Order on Reconsideration and Clarification at 5, Complaint of 

GameFly, Inc., Docket No. C2009-1R (PRC Aug. 13, 2013).

USCA Case #13-1229 Document #1487356 Filed: 04/08/2014 Page 14 of 15
15 

For the foregoing reasons, we deny the petition for 

review. 

So ordered. 

USCA Case #13-1229 Document #1487356 Filed: 04/08/2014 Page 15 of 15