Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca2-11-02512/USCOURTS-ca2-11-02512-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Jason Dalen
Appellant
Does 1 Through 10
Appellee
Allan Fromen
Appellant
Les Izumi
Appellant
Angela Kaufman
Appellant
Danielle Knerr
Appellant
Jenny Lell
Appellant
Matthew McAleney
Appellant
Matthew Meeds
Appellant
Robert Mitchell
Appellant
Noam Nahary
Appellant
Jeffrey Seals
Appellant
William Steinke
Appellant
Time Warner
Appellee
Time Warner Cable, Inc.
Appellee

Document Text:

11‐2512‐cv

In re Set‐Top Cable Television Box Antitrust Litigation

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT

     

August Term 2012  

(Argued:  February 19, 2013 Decided:  September 2, 2016)

Docket No. 11‐2512‐cv

     

ANGELA KAUFMAN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,

JENNY LELL, LES IZUMI, individually, JEFFREY SEALS, an individual, JASON DALEN,

MATTHEW MEEDS, individually and as a representative of those persons similarly

situated, ALLAN FROMEN, NOAM NAHARY, ROBERT MITCHELL, MATTHEW

MCALENEY, WILLIAM STEINKE, DANIELLE KNERR,

Plaintiffs‐Appellants,

v.

TIME WARNER, TIME WARNER CABLE, INC., DOES 1 through 10, inclusive,

Defendants‐Appellants,

     

ON APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

     

Before:

WINTER, CHIN, AND DRONEY, Circuit Judges.

     

Case 11-2512, Document 135-1, 09/02/2016, 1855515, Page1 of 26
Appeal from an order of the United States District Court for the

Southern District of New York (Castel, J.), dismissing plaintiffsʹ complaint against

Time Warner Cable Inc. alleging an illegal tie‐in of certain cable services to the

leasing of cable boxes.  We affirm.   

Judge Droney dissents in a separate opinion.

AFFIRMED.

      

MICHAEL D. POSPISIL, (John F. Edgar, on the brief),

Edgar Law Firm LLC, Kansas City, MI, and

Robert I. Harwood, Peter W. Overs, Jr.

Harwood Feffer LLP, New York, New York

for Plaintiffs‐Appellants.

MARGARET M. SWISLER (Matthew A. Brill, Jennifer

L. Giordano, on the brief), Latham &

Watkins LLP, Washington, D.C.,

Defendants‐Appellees.

     

Case 11-2512, Document 135-1, 09/02/2016, 1855515, Page2 of 26
WINTER and CHIN, Circuit Judges:

Various subscribers to cable television services from Time Warner

entities (collectively ʺTime Warnerʺ) commenced this action below, alleging a

violation of the Sherman Act in the tying of certain premium cable television

services to the leasing of ʺinteractiveʺ set‐top cable boxes.  The district court

(Kevin Castel, Judge) dismissed two iterations of the complaint, including the

Third Amended Complaint, the operative complaint for the purposes of this

opinion.  The plaintiffs appealed.

We affirm, holding that the Third Amended Complaint fails to

adequately plead facts that, if proven, would establish that:  (i) the set‐top cable

boxes and the premium programming they transmit are separate products for

the purposes of antitrust law; and (ii) Time Warner possesses sufficient market

power in the relevant markets to establish an illegal tie‐in.

BACKGROUND

The original complaint, filed in August 2008 in the United States

District Court for the District of Kansas, alleged, inter alia, a violation of the

Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1, in Time Warnerʹs requiring purchasers who bought a

package of television channels to lease from Time Warner cable boxes necessary

to transmit that programming. Similar lawsuits were filed in other districts and,

Case 11-2512, Document 135-1, 09/02/2016, 1855515, Page3 of 26
2

in December 2008, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation transferred the

cases to the Southern District of New York.  The plaintiffs filed their First

Amended Complaint shortly thereafter. Holding that the plaintiffs failed to

plead actual coercion in the alleged tying arrangement, the district court

dismissed the First Amended Complaint under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) with leave

to replead.  In re Time Warner Inc. Set‐Top Cable Television Antitrust Litig., Nos. 08

MDL 1995, 08 Civ. 7616(PKC), 2010 WL 882989 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 5, 2010).  After a

conference with the district court, the plaintiffs voluntarily withdrew the Second

Amended Complaint and were granted leave to file a Third Amended Complaint

(the ʺComplaintʺ).  The district court dismissed the Complaint because it failed to

plausibly allege market power and adverse competitive effects.  In re Set‐Top

Cable Television Box Antitrust Litig., Nos. 08 MDL 1995, 08 Civ. 7616(PKC), 2011

WL 1432036, at *13 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 8, 2011).

The Complaint identifies the relevant tying product as ʺPremium

Cable Services,ʺ defined as ʺdigital cable services incorporating interactive

functions.ʺ  (Joint App. 174).  The interactive features include program guides,

parental control devices, ʺstart overʺ functionality (allowing viewers to start a

program from the beginning), and on demand programming of movies, sports,

Case 11-2512, Document 135-1, 09/02/2016, 1855515, Page4 of 26
3

and adult material.  Premium Cable Services require a set‐top box that functions

bi‐directionally, i.e., it is able to transmit signals from the cable provider to the

consumer and vice versa.

The Complaint alleges that Time Warner, using its market power

over Premium Cable Services in 53 United States markets, forces its subscribers

to lease ʺset‐top boxesʺ or ʺbi‐directional cable boxesʺ from Time Warner, to be

returned if or when the subscriptions end, as a condition of subscribing to the

Premium Cable Services.  Consumers are thus not able to end a subscription and

use their own cable box to buy a subscription from a new provider or receive that

programming in another area.  Time Warner does not manufacture the set‐top

boxes it leases to subscribers; it purchases them from manufacturers such as

Motorola, Scientific Atlanta, and Samsung.

The district court dismissed the Complaint largely on the grounds

that the Complaint failed to distinguish between markets in which Time Warner

had competition for Premium Cable Services ‐‐ 22 of the 53 markets ‐‐ or to

distinguish between Time Warnerʹs market power in basic cable services and its

market power in premium services.  In re Set‐Top Cable Television Box Antitrust

Litigation, 2011 WL 1432036, at *13‐14.  The court held, therefore, that the

Case 11-2512, Document 135-1, 09/02/2016, 1855515, Page5 of 26
4

plaintiffs did not plausibly plead that Time Warner had the requisite market

power.  It granted the plaintiffs leave to replead for the fourth time.  Id. at *14.  

They instead appealed.

DISCUSSION

We review a district courtʹs grant of a motion to dismiss under Rule

12(b)(6) de novo, accepting all allegations in the Complaint as true and drawing

all reasonable inferences in favor of the non‐moving party.  Taylor v. Vt. Depʹt of

Educ., 313 F.3d 768, 776 (2d Cir. 2002).  However, the allegations must still be

ʺplausible,ʺ a standard that ʺasks for more than a sheer possibility that a

defendant has acted unlawfully,ʺ Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009), and ʺa

district court must retain the power to insist upon some specificity in pleading,ʺ 

Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 558 (2007) (internal quotations omitted).

I. Tie‐Ins

A tying arrangement is ʺan agreement by a party to sell a product

but only on the condition that the buyer also purchase[] a different (or tied)

product.ʺ  Yentsch v. Texaco, Inc., 630 F.2d 46, 56 (2d Cir. 1980) (quoting N. Pac.

Ry. Co. v. United States, 356 U.S. 1, 5 (1958)).  The fear of tie‐ins is that a

monopolist in one product market will seek to expand its monopoly by

Case 11-2512, Document 135-1, 09/02/2016, 1855515, Page6 of 26
5

conditioning the purchase of the monopolized product upon the purchase of a

product in a separate market.

To state a valid tying claim under the Sherman Act, a plaintiff must

allege facts plausibly showing that:  (i) the sale of one product (the tying product)

is conditioned on the purchase of a separate product (the tied product); (ii) the

seller uses actual coercion to force buyers to purchase the tied product; (iii) the

seller has sufficient economic power in the tying product market to coerce

purchasers into buying the tied product; (iv) the tie‐in has anticompetitive effects

in the tied market; and (v) a not insubstantial amount of interstate commerce is

involved in the tied market.  E & L Consulting, Ltd. v. Doman Indus. Ltd., 472 F.3d

23, 31 (2d Cir. 2006) (quoting De Jesus v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 87 F.3d 65, 70 (2d

Cir. 1996)).

Three of these elements are of particular relevance to this appeal:  

the tying product and tied product must be separate, i.e., each must be in a

separate and distinct product market; the seller must use actual coercion; and the

seller must have sufficient market power in the market for the tying product to

coerce the purchase of the tied product.  Although these elements overlap ‐‐ the

Case 11-2512, Document 135-1, 09/02/2016, 1855515, Page7 of 26
6

ʺseparate productʺ and ʺmarket powerʺ requirements are usually essential to the

coercion element ‐‐ we will discuss them separately.

The ʺseparate productʺ element requires that the alleged tying

product and tied product be separate, i.e., they must exist in separate and distinct

product markets.  See Jefferson Parish Hosp. Dist. No. 2 v. Hyde, 466 U.S. 2, 19‐24 &

n.39 (1984) (finding separate product markets in part because the evidence

showed that anesthesiologists were more akin to office‐based physicians than

radiologists and other hospital‐based physicians), abrogated on other grounds by Ill.

Tool Works Inc. v. Indep. Ink, Inc., 547 U.S. 28, 31 (2006); Eastman Kodak Co. v. Image

Tech. Servs., 504 U.S. 451, 462‐63 (1992) (finding separate and distinct product

markets existed because two products had been sold separately in the past and

ʺstill [were] sold separately to self‐service equipment ownersʺ).  This is because if

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.

Whether two products are ʺseparateʺ for purposes of antitrust law is

governed by the ʺconsumer demand test.ʺ  See United States v. Microsoft Corp., 253

F.3d 34, 85‐89 (D.C. Cir. 2001).  As the District of Columbia Circuit has stated:

Case 11-2512, Document 135-1, 09/02/2016, 1855515, Page8 of 26
7

The consumer demand test is a rough proxy for

whether a tying arrangement may, on balance, be

welfare‐enhancing, and unsuited to per se

condemnation.  In the abstract, of course, there is

always direct separate demand for products:  assuming

choice is available at zero cost, consumers will prefer it

to no choice.  Only when the efficiencies from bundling

are dominated by the benefits to choice for enough

consumers, however, will we actually observe

consumers making independent purchases.  In other

words, perceptible separate demand is inversely

proportional to net efficiencies.  On the supply side,

firms without market power will bundle two goods

only when the cost savings from joint sale outweigh the

value consumers place on separate choice.  So bundling

by all competitive firms implies strong net efficiencies.  

If a court finds either that there is no noticeable separate

demand for the tied product or, there being no

convincing direct evidence of separate demand, that the

entire ʺcompetitive fringeʺ engages in the same

behavior as the defendant then the tying and tied

products should be declared one product and per se

liability should be rejected.

Id. at 87‐88 (citation omitted).

Specifically, ʺno tying arrangement can exist unless there is a

sufficient demand for the purchase of [the tied product] separate from [the tying

product] to identify a distinct product market in which it is efficient to offer [the

former] separately from [the latter].ʺ Jefferson Parish, 466 U.S. at 21–22; accord

Eastman Kodak, 504 U.S. at 462.  Relevant evidence of separate and distinct

consumer demand for the tying product and the tied product is, inter alia, the

Case 11-2512, Document 135-1, 09/02/2016, 1855515, Page9 of 26
8

history of the products being, or not being, sold separately, Eastman Kodak, 504

U.S. at 462, or the sale of the products separately in similar markets, Microsoft,

253 F.3d at 87‐88.

But even if there are separate product markets, a tie‐in may not

violate the antitrust laws.  The element of actual coercion is designed to weed out

the many cases where the bundling of separate products is due to consumer

demand.  If a consumer wants to purchase a bundle of the alleged tying and tied

products, the seller is simply satisfying consumer demand and monopolization

concerns are irrelevant.  Indeed, consumers often benefit from the bundling of

separate products, even where the seller has market power in one product.  See

id. (discussing the ʺpotential benefits from tyingʺ).  Where the consumer so

benefits, there cannot be coercion and the bundling does not violate the antitrust

laws.  See id.

To illustrate, we will use examples at the ends of the illegal‐legal

spectrum.  First, a utility with a monopoly protected by law, but subject to price

regulation in the service it provides ‐‐ e.g., electricity ‐‐ would be tempted to tie‐

in an unregulated, separate product ‐‐ e.g., light bulbs ‐‐ to recoup the monopoly

profit denied by the price regulation.  See 10 Phillip E. Areeda & Herbert

Case 11-2512, Document 135-1, 09/02/2016, 1855515, Page10 of 26
9

Hovenkamp, Antitrust Law ¶ 1732 (3d ed. 2011); Herbert Hovenkamp, Federal

Antitrust Policy 436 (4th ed. 2011).  Such a tie‐in would serve no efficiency interest

benefitting consumers and would be illegal per se.  See Areeda & Hovenkamp ¶

1732.  However, there are countless tie‐ins of physically separate products that

benefit consumers and pose little, if any, risk of anticompetitive harm.  At the

other end of the spectrum, an unusually efficient padlock manufacturer may

have all of the market for padlocks in a particular geographic area and also

require a would‐be purchaser of a padlock to buy a set of compatible keys

packaged with the lock.  This sort of tie‐in has efficiency gains that benefit

consumers and would be legal.1  Between these spectrum‐ending examples are a

range of plentiful close cases.

The third element at issue here ‐‐ market power in the tying product

‐‐ is essential to a would‐be monopolistʹs coercion via tie‐in.  Without the

leverage of market power, a sellerʹs inefficient tie‐in will fail because a rational

consumer will buy the tying product from the sellerʹs competitor.  ʺAs a simple

                                               1 A package with both a lock and keys is preferred by consumers over a

lock and keys as separate products.  Consumers would incur transaction costs from

having to search for keys compatible with a specific lock ‐‐ packaging the products

together avoids these costs.  The lock and keys tie‐in creates even more value to the

consumer if a problem with the product arises.  What if the lock will not turn?  Without

the tie‐in, the consumer may be faced with the lock manufacturer saying the problem

lies with the keys and the key manufacturer saying the problem lies with the lock.

Case 11-2512, Document 135-1, 09/02/2016, 1855515, Page11 of 26
10

example, if one of a dozen food stores in a community were to refuse to sell flour

unless the buyer also took sugar it would hardly tend to restrain competition in

sugar if its competitors were ready and able to sell flour by itself.ʺ  N. Pac. Ry. Co.,

356 U.S. at 6‐7.  Hence, without market power, there is little risk of

anticompetitive harm from the sellerʹs tie‐in.

Market power is ʺthe ability of a single seller to raise price and

restrict output.ʺ  Eastman Kodak, 504 U.S. at 464 (quoting Fortner Enters., Inc. v.

U.S. Steel Corp., 394 U.S. 495, 503 (1969)).  It can be shown by specific evidence of

a sellerʹs ability to control prices or exclude competitors from the market.  See

K.M.B. Warehouse Distribs., Inc. v. Walker Mfg. Co., 61 F.3d 123, 129 (2d Cir. 1995).  

Market share is proxy for market power.  See id.; Eastman Kodak, 504 U.S. at 464.  

A high market share alone, however, is insufficient to infer a sellerʹs market

power if other characteristics of the product market, such as low barriers to

entry, high cross elasticity of demand, or technological developments in the

industry, interfere with the sellerʹs control of prices. See Tops Mkts., Inc. v. Quality

Mkts., Inc., 142 F.3d 90, 98‐99 (2d Cir. 1998) (ʺA court will draw an inference of

monopoly power only after full consideration of the relationship between market

share and other relevant market characteristics.ʺ).  Indeed, in a tying case, the

Case 11-2512, Document 135-1, 09/02/2016, 1855515, Page12 of 26
11

ʺbest wayʺ to plead market power is to allege facts that, if proven, ʺestablish

directly that the price of the tied package is higher than the price of components

sold in competitive markets.ʺ  Will v. Comprehensive Accounting Corp., 776 F.2d

665, 671‐72 (7th Cir. 1985) (Easterbrook, J.).

II. Separate Product Markets

A. Cable Boxes Generally

Cable boxes, whether interactive or not, have a physical appearance

separate from the programming they receive.  A layperson might view them as

the equivalent of a radio, and there are similarities.  A radio receives and plays

signals transmitted on various frequencies by networks and independent

stations, and the consumer can use the radio to navigate between programs.  

While rights to the programming are retained by the owners of the programming

content and protected by a bar against copying and retransmission, the consumer

needs no contract with the network or station to receive the programming.

Cable boxes are somewhat similar.  They receive and transmit

programming and allow the viewer to navigate between channels.  But there are

significant differences.  Signals are not picked up from the air; they are received

through cable lines owned by providers.  A would‐be viewer must subscribe to

Case 11-2512, Document 135-1, 09/02/2016, 1855515, Page13 of 26
12

one of several packages of tiered programming offered by a particular cable

provider ‐‐ e.g., basic, basic plus a sports package, basic plus premium ‐‐ to view

various programs at various times.  Networks and other content producers retain

rights against copying for commercial use and the cable providers retain rights to

the packages of programming.  In short, cable providers sell to their subscribers

rights to viewing and copying for personal use its packages of programming.

A cable box must be designed to receive the signal from a particular

provider, which requires the providerʹs cooperation.  And because providers

code their signals to prevent theft, a cable box must also be able to unscramble

the coded signal of the particular provider.  Unsurprisingly, providers do not

share their codes with cable box manufacturers.

Therefore, to be useful to a consumer, a cable box must be cable‐

provider specific, like the keys to a padlock.  Although the plaintiffs frame their

claim as a tie‐in, the core issue is a cable providerʹs right to refuse to enable cable

boxes it does not control to unscramble its coded signal.

B. Allegations

The Complaint alleges that, ʺ[b]ut for Time‐Warnerʹs unlawful tying

requirement . . . there would be a thriving market in which consumers would

Case 11-2512, Document 135-1, 09/02/2016, 1855515, Page14 of 26
13

have a choice in their purchase of cable boxes.ʺ  Joint App. 204.  However, the

Complaint lacks any allegation that there have ever been separate sales of set‐top

boxes and cable services, whether or not ʺpremium,ʺ in the United States, even in

markets where cable providers face competition and, more specifically, in

markets where Premium Cable Services are available through competing fiber

optic networks that do not use set‐top boxes.

The specific factual allegations that support the claim that the set‐top

boxes and Premium Cable Services are separate products are that:  (i) existing

technology permits the sale of remotely programmable bi‐directional cable boxes

at retail; (ii) Time Warner does not manufacture its own bi‐directional cable

boxes; (iii) Time Warner separately itemizes charges for leasing bi‐directional

cable boxes and providing cable television services on consumersʹ bills; (iv) bi‐

directional cable boxes are sold separately at retail in markets outside of the

United States, specifically South Korea; and (v) modems are sold separately from

internet services in the United States.

Viewed individually or collectively, these allegations are insufficient.  

Allegations (i) and (ii) ‐‐ the existence of relevant technology and Time Warnerʹs

lack of manufacturing operations ‐‐ address supply‐side considerations rather

Case 11-2512, Document 135-1, 09/02/2016, 1855515, Page15 of 26
14

than the character of consumer demand, i.e., whether consumers would purchase

cable boxes separately from cable services if given the choice.  Further, we note

that sellers commonly purchase components from various manufacturers and

package the components together for sale as a unitary product.  Thus, that Time

Warner does so with set‐top boxes and Premium Cable Services says little about

whether there are separate product markets for these components as a matter of

antitrust law.  Cf. Jack Walters & Sons Corp. v. Morton Bldg., Inc., 737 F.2d 698, 703

(7th Cir. 1984) (Posner, J.) (ʺ[T]o hold therefore that every composite product is a

tie‐in, subject to the hostile scrutiny to which antitrust law still subjects tie‐ins,

would place industry under a vast antitrust cloud, and has been rejected.ʺ).

In a vacuum, allegation (iii) ‐‐ Time Warnerʹs separate itemization of

charges for set‐top boxes and cable services on consumer bills ‐‐ could suggest

that Time Warner considers them separate products.  In light of an FCC rule that

compels Time Warner to separately itemize these charges, however, such an

inference is not plausible.  See 47 C.F.R. § 76.1206; Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 681 (weighing

ʺallegations [that] are consistent withʺ liability against ʺmore likely explanationsʺ 

and concluding that the claim is not plausible).

Case 11-2512, Document 135-1, 09/02/2016, 1855515, Page16 of 26
15

As for allegation (iv) ‐‐ the availability of retail bi‐directional cable

boxes in some markets outside of the United States ‐‐ there is no reasonably

specific allegation that those markets are sufficiently similar to the U.S. market in

relevant respects such that it is plausible to infer that Time Warnerʹs tie‐in, rather

than other market conditions, explains the retail unavailability of such cable

boxes.2  Notably lacking is any allegation that there has ever been separate sales

of cable boxes and cable services in the United States, even in markets where

cable providers are in competition with each other or with fiber optic cable

services that employ different technology.  See Microsoft, 253 F.3d at 88

(ʺ[B]undling by all competitive firms implies strong net efficiencies.ʺ).

Similarly, as to (v), ‐‐ the separate sales of modems ‐‐ obvious

differences between the provision of cable and internet services negate any

inference as to separate markets for bi‐directional cable boxes.  As described in

detail above, a cable box useful to consumers must be provider‐specific, allowing

consumers to subscribe to particular packages of programming, while modems,

like radios, transmit all available content.

                                              

2 For example, relevant characteristics of the market include, among other

things, the regulatory environment, norms for the protection of intellectual property

rights, security, theft propensity, and consumer preferences.

Case 11-2512, Document 135-1, 09/02/2016, 1855515, Page17 of 26
16

The Complaint, therefore, fails to allege facts that, if proven, would

show the existence of a demand for bi‐directional cable boxes separate from the

demand for Premium Cable Services.  Likewise, it fails to plausibly allege that

consumers are coerced into ʺleasingʺ set‐top boxes from Time Warner that they

would otherwise purchase elsewhere.

C. The Regulatory Environment

Our conclusion that the Complaint fails to plausibly allege separate

product markets for bi‐directional cable boxes and Premium Cable Services is

supported by our examination of the relevant statutory and regulatory

framework, as is required by existing law.  See Verizon Commcʹns Inc. v. Law

Offices of Curtis V. Trinko, LLP, 540 U.S. 398, 411‐12 (2004) (ʺAntitrust analysis

must always be attuned to the particular structure and circumstances of the

industry at issue,ʺ including ʺthe existence of a regulatory structure designed to

. . . . perform[] the antitrust function,ʺ which may ʺdiminish[] the likelihood of

major antitrust harm.ʺ (internal citations and quotation marks omitted)); Taylor,

313 F.3d at 776 (a reviewing court may consider the complaint, documents

attached to the complaint, documents incorporated by reference in the

complaint, and public records, when considering a motion to dismiss).

Case 11-2512, Document 135-1, 09/02/2016, 1855515, Page18 of 26
17

As the Complaint acknowledges, Congress has specifically

addressed the tie‐in issues arising from the sale of cable services with cable boxes

and the FCC has been deeply involved in this issue throughout the time period

covered by the Complaint.  In 1996, Congress directed the FCC to ʺadopt

regulations to assure the commercial availability of devices that consumers use

to access [cable services] . . . from manufacturers, retailers, and other vendors not

affiliated withʺ cable providers.  Expanding Consumersʹ Video Navigation

Choices; Commercial Availability of Navigational Devices, 81 Fed. Reg. 14,033,

14,033 (Mar. 16, 2016) (internal quotation omitted).  Congress also directed that

any such regulations must not ʺjeopardize security of [cable] systems, or impede

the legal rights of a provider of such services to prevent theft of service.ʺ  Id. at

14,033 (quoting 47 U.S.C. § 549(b)).  In other words, since 1996, the FCC has been

tasked with disaggregating set‐top boxes from the cable services they deliver, or,

in antitrust terms, developing separate product markets for cable boxes and cable

services.

The FCC has recently acknowledged that numerous efforts to create

those separate markets have failed, especially as to bi‐directional cable boxes and

Premium Cable Services.  See 81 Fed. Reg. at 14,033‐34.  A combination of the

Case 11-2512, Document 135-1, 09/02/2016, 1855515, Page19 of 26
18

speed of technological change in the market, and various hardware, software,

security, and collective‐action problems have impeded the FCCʹs attempts to

foster separate markets.  See id. at 14,033‐35 (ʺCable operators used widely

varying security technologies, and the best standard available to the Commission

was . . . hardware based [and] worked only with one‐way cable services. . . . [A]

new approach that would work with two‐way services [failed because it] was not

sophisticated enough to meet content companiesʹ content protection demands.ʺ).  

In March 2016, the FCC proposed new regulations in a further attempt to create

separate markets, see id., but its historic failure to do so over the time period

covered by the Complaint bolsters our conclusion that the plaintiffs have not

plausibly alleged separate product markets for bi‐directional cable boxes and

Premium Cable Services.

Moreover, though it does not touch on any of the specific elements

of a tying claim discussed above, there is an FCC regulation that further renders

the claims in this case implausible.  See 47 C.F.R. § 76.923.  That regulation caps

the price that Time Warner or other providers may charge to lease set‐top cable

box equipment to consumers.  Id. § 76.923(f)‐(g) (providing that ʺ[m]onthly

charges for rental of a [cable box] unit shall consist of the average annual unit

Case 11-2512, Document 135-1, 09/02/2016, 1855515, Page20 of 26
19

purchase cost of [cable boxes] leased, including acquisition price and incidental

costs such as sales tax, financing and storage up to the time it is provided to the

customer, added to the product of the [hourly service charge] times the average

number of hours annually repairing or servicing a [cable box], divided by 12 to

determine the monthly lease rate for a [cable box].ʺ).  It also limits which

maintenance and financing charges may be amortized over twelve months and

provides that Timer Warner may include a ʺreasonable profitʺ in its leasing rate.  

Id. § 76.923(c).

Such a regulatory price control on the tied product makes the

plaintiffsʹ tying claim implausible as a whole.  We doubt that Time Warner

would attempt to monopolize the market for bi‐directional cable boxes when an

FCC regulation caps the amount of profits that Time Warner may reap from that

market.  Cf. Verizon, 540 U.S. at 412 (ʺThe regulatory framework that exists in this

case demonstrates how, in certain circumstances, regulation significantly

diminishes the likelihood of major antitrust harm.ʺ (internal quotation marks

omitted)).  Indeed, a typical tie‐in works in the reverse of the circumstances here:  

Government regulation of the tying productʹs price will cause the monopolist to

seek monopoly rents through sales of an unregulated tied product.  See

Case 11-2512, Document 135-1, 09/02/2016, 1855515, Page21 of 26
20

Hovenkamp at 436; cf. Eastman Kodak, 504 U.S. at 487 (ʺ[T]ying arrangements may

be used to evade price control in the tying product through clandestine transfer of

the profit to the tied product; . . . and they may be used to force a full line of

products on the customer so as to extract more easily from him a monopoly

return on one unique product in the line.ʺ (emphases added) (quoting Fortner

Enters., 394 U.S. at 513–514 (White, J., dissenting))).

The insufficiency of the allegations of a separate market for bi‐

directional cable boxes, the inability of the FCC to create such a market, and the

price regulation of the tied product further persuade us that the Complaint does

not plead a plausible tying claim.

III. Market Power

We also conclude that, as the district court held, the Complaint does

not plausibly allege market power in the relevant product and geographic

markets.

As noted above, the Complaint defines the relevant product market

as that for Premium Cable Services (a market separate from basic cable).  It

identifies 53 distinct geographic markets in which Time Warner allegedly has

violated the antitrust laws.  The plaintiffs were, therefore, required to allege facts

Case 11-2512, Document 135-1, 09/02/2016, 1855515, Page22 of 26
21

supporting an inference that Time Warner possessed market power in the

Premium Cable Services market in each specified geographic market.  See Ill. Tool

Works, 547 U.S. at 46 (ʺ[I]n all cases involving a tying arrangement, the plaintiff

must prove that the defendant has market power in the tying product.ʺ); E & L

Consulting, 472 F.3d at 32 (even prior to Twombly, ʺan antitrust defendant charged

with illegal tying is entitled to some specificityʺ as to each element of antitrust

claim alleged).

Broadly, the Complaint alleges that major cable providers in the

aggregate possess power over the market for basic cable in the United States.  It

also alleges that the firms do not generally compete with each other within the

specified local markets. Further, because Time Warner ʺcontrolsʺ the markets in

which it provides basic cable services and because ʺthe provision of Premium

Cable Services relies upon the same basic infrastructure as basic cable services,ʺ 

the Complaint alleges that Time Warner ʺnaturallyʺ has market power over

Premium Cable Services.  Joint App. 180.

These allegations are insufficient to plead market power.  They

conflate the markets for basic and premium cable.3  The plaintiffs cannot

                                               3 The plaintiffs emphasize that the packages sold by cable providers are

ʺtieredʺ so that every subscriber of premium services obtains basic services from the

Case 11-2512, Document 135-1, 09/02/2016, 1855515, Page23 of 26
22

plausibly derive Time Warnerʹs market power over Premium Cable Services from

broad allegations about the nationwide market for basic cable.  While Time

Warnerʹs delivery of Premium Cable Services depends on the technological

infrastructure it uses to provide basic cable, such fact implies little about the

market for Premium Cable Services, especially given the Complaintʹs allegation

that Time Warnerʹs competitors deploy different technology to provide the same

product.  Indeed, the Complaint alleges no particular facts bearing on Time

Warnerʹs share of the market for premium, two‐way services, as opposed to basic

cable services.  Antitrust law requires plaintiffs to plead such facts and the

plaintiffsʹ failure to do so means they have not plausibly pled market power.  See

PepsiCo, Inc. v. Coca–Cola Co., 315 F.3d 101, 108 (2d Cir. 2002) (ʺIn the absence of

direct measurements of a defendantʹs ability to control prices or exclude

competition . . . market power necessarily must be determined by reference to the

ʹarea of effective competitionʹ ‐‐ which, in turn, is determined by reference to a

specific, defined ʹproduct market.ʹʺ (internal citations omitted)); see also Rick‐Mik

Enters. Inc. v. Equilon Enters., LLC, 532 F.3d 963, 972 (9th Cir. 2008) (a tying claim

                                                                                                                                                  

same provider.  However, it would make little commercial sense to sell basic cable

services separately.  In any event, an allegation of a large market share in basic services

means nothing in this context because such a share tells us nothing about the market

share in premium services.

Case 11-2512, Document 135-1, 09/02/2016, 1855515, Page24 of 26
23

is insufficient where allegations of market power are based on facts about a

broader industry rather than the specific tying product market).

What is more, the Complaint alleges that Time Warner competes

with other, non‐cable companies in the provision of Premium Cable Services in

at least 22 geographic markets.  No facts are alleged, however, concerning Time

Warnerʹs share of these markets or how the presence of non‐cable competitors

affects Time Warnerʹs power over price in these markets.  Thus, without more

specific allegations, an inference of market power is not plausible.  Cf. Tops Mkts.,

142 F.3d at 99 (an inference of market power is appropriate ʺonly after full

consideration of the relationship between market share and other relevant

market characteristicsʺ).

The Complaint, therefore, does not allege facts sufficient to infer that

Time Warner possessed market power over Premium Cable Services in the 53

specified markets and the tie‐in claim fails on that ground as well.

CONCLUSION

For the reasons stated, we conclude that the Complaint fails to

plausibly allege that bi‐directional cable boxes are a separate product from the

Premium Cable Service subscriptions they transmit.  The FCCʹs long history of

Case 11-2512, Document 135-1, 09/02/2016, 1855515, Page25 of 26
24

regulation in this area further reinforces our conclusions.  We also conclude that

the Complaint fails to plausibly allege Time Warnerʹs market power in the

particular product and geographic markets defined in the Complaint.  

We therefore AFFIRM.

Case 11-2512, Document 135-1, 09/02/2016, 1855515, Page26 of 26