In MCI v. Pacific Bell , the CPUC found that Pacific had refused to provide a service that its own tariff promised. C. Regulation Can Also Create Special Defenses to Antitrust Claims. FTC v. Ticor Title Ins. The state action doctrine is a federal doctrine based on the rationale that the Sherman Act was not intended to cover actions of the state acting in its sovereign capacity and directing the conduct attacked. If conduct is subject to federal regulation, the application of state antitrust law may be limited by federal preemption, discussed separately below.
Several issues make the defense problematic, however.
Courts have split on whether the Keogh defense is available in actions brought by competitors rather than customers. Keogh is a federal doctrine that might not be followed by a state in the application of state antitrust law. Some courts have held that the doctrine applies to the filing of tariffs. See MCI Comm. Other courts refuse to apply the doctrine to tariff filings.