Opinion ID: 1903200
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: Definition of the Relevant Market

Text: We note at the outset that proper analysis in an antitrust case first requires determination of the relevant market. . . . AD/SAT v. Associated Press, 181 F.3d 216, 225 (2d Cir.1999); id. ([a]s is frequently the case in antitrust litigation, the [c]ourt's definition of the relevant market was dispositive); accord Westport Taxi Service, Inc. v. Westport Transit District, supra, 235 Conn. at 16, 664 A.2d 719 ([m]onopoly power is power to fix or control prices or to exclude or control competition in the relevant market [internal quotation marks omitted]). The relevant market for purposes of antitrust litigation is the `area of effective competition' within which the defendant operates. AD/SAT v. Associated Press, supra, at 227. Market definition generally is a deeply fact-intensive inquiry. . . . Todd v. Exxon Corp., 275 F.3d 191, 199 (2d Cir.2001); see also Hayden Publishing Co. v. Cox Broadcasting Corp., 730 F.2d 64, 70 (2d Cir.1984) ([i]n our view, there were clearly genuine issues of fact concerning the definition of the relevant market, thus precluding even partial summary judgment). The plaintiffs contend, both in their brief and at oral argument before this court, that the trial court improperly conducted its state action analysis in a manner that implicitly accepted the defendants' argument that, as a factual proposition, the relevant wholesale water market does not exist. The plaintiffs argue that, at the very least, a genuine issue of material fact with respect to the relevant market exists, thereby precluding summary judgment. Our review of the trial court's memorandum of decision shows that the court acknowledged the plaintiffs' claim with respect to the relevant market, but neither ruled on the existence of a distinction between the retail and wholesale markets, nor explained how any such distinction affected its analysis. Having reviewed the pleadings and factual record in this case in the context of the relevant statutes, we conclude that there is, at the very least, a genuine issue of material fact as to the existence of a wholesale water market in southeastern Connecticut. [27] The plaintiffs have pleaded their intention to sell water from the pond to other water utilities, including the defendants, in the New London area for subsequent distribution. Moreover, the difference between the wholesale and retail markets was explained by Schacht in an affidavit submitted to the trial court in connection with the defendants' motion for summary judgment. In that affidavit, Schacht stated that retail customers are individuals or businesses that purchase water from individual utility companies through service connections to water mains. Wholesale water customers, by contrast, are utility companies themselves, which purchase water in bulk for resale to retail customers. Schacht noted that the retail relationships are compulsory and not subject to competitive market factors because the department of public health designates exclusive service areas, wherein one utility is assigned responsibility for providing retail water service. See also General Statutes § 25-33d (c) (defining `[e]xclusive service area' as an area where public water is supplied by one system). Schacht averred that, in contrast, the wholesale market is voluntary and independent of the exclusive service area system. Accordingly, viewing the relevant market in the light most favorable to the plaintiffs; see, e.g., Zhang v. Omnipoint Communications Enterprises, Inc., 272 Conn. 627, 633, 866 A.2d 588 (2005); we conclude that our analysis of the relevant statutes and regulations must take place in the context of the wholesale water market. [28]