Opinion ID: 217510
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The Hospital's Warning to ENH

Text: We first turn to the Hospital's warning that ENH stay out of the Hospital's territory. Under circuit precedent, such a territorial admonition to a competitor like other speech made in the commercial contextdoes not violate the antitrust laws unless it leads to an agreement to restrain trade or is accompanied by some sort of enforcement mechanism designed somehow to coerce or compel that competitor to heed the admonition. See Sanderson v. Culligan Int'l Co., 415 F.3d 620, 623 (7th Cir.2005) (affirming summary judgment against antitrust claim based on allegedly defamatory statements, due to lack of an enforcement mechanism); Schachar v. American Academy of Ophthalmology, Inc., 870 F.2d 397, 400 (7th Cir.1989) (Without [an enforcement mechanism] there is only uncoordinated individual action, the essence of competition.). We find nothing in the record to indicate that the Hospital's warnings to ENH were backed by any sort of coercive conduct that might give rise to antitrust liability. The Hospital did not threaten to spearhead a boycott of ENH's services or to have ENH's suppliers withhold medical supplies if it entered Hospital territory. See Schachar, 870 F.2d at 399 (noting that boycotts and agreements not to distribute certain products are the types of enforcement mechanisms that may render speech actionable under the antitrust laws). Nor did the Hospital possess any inherent authority that it could leverage to compel ENH to stay out of Lake Bluff. See id. at 398 (finding significant that defendant had no authority over hospitals, insurers, state medical societies or licensing boards, and other persons who might be able to govern the performance of surgery). Regardless of what the Hospital said, ENH was free to choose for itself whether to compete close to the Hospital. Put simply, all the Hospital did was say aloud what every business already thinks about its competitors: stay out of my territory. See Olympia Equip. Leasing Co. v. W. Union Telegraph Co., 797 F.2d 370, 379 (7th Cir.1986) (Most businessmen don't like their competitors, or for that matter competition.). Such a statement, absent an agreement or any coercive enforcement mechanisms to back it up, is simply not actionable under the Sherman Act.