Heerwagon v. Clear Channel Communication
1
Heerwagen v. Clear Channel Communication 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals 435 F.3d 219 (2nd Cir. 2006) Key Search Terms: class certification, Sherman Act, antitrust, entertainment, FRCP 23, monopoly Facts Malinda Heerwagen, an Illinois resident, attended ten concerts in the Chicago area between 1997 and 2004. She did not purchase or research ticket prices for any other market. Heerwagen brought this suit as a representative for a national class of victims, against Clear Channel Communications for violating Section Two of the Sherman Antitrust Act. She claimed Clear Channel inflated ticket prices and monopolized the concert market. Clear Channel Communications is a Texas based company, which owns subsidiaries Clear Channel Radio, Inc. and Clear Channel Entertainment, Inc. In 2001 Clear Channel accounted for 70 percent of concert ticket revenue in the United States. Heerwagen sought certification as representative for a nationwide class of ticket purchasers injured by Clear Channels’ monopoly. Heerwagen claims that Clear Channel engaged in anticompetitive, predatory and exclusionary practices to extend its monopoly power in the national market for concert tickets, violating § 2 of the Sherman Antitrust Act. Issue The issue on appeal is whether local market or the national market is more relevenat and whether Heerwagen properly represented the relevant market. Holding The 2nd Circuit affirmed the district court’s holding that Clear Channel did not have the power to control national prices and exclude competition, so Heerwagen’s local market was more relevant. The 2nd Circuit reasoned that Heerwagen failed to show her claim was relevant to a national market because local markets for ticket sales are not transformed into national markets simply because concert tours are coordinated nationally. The court of appeals held that Heerwagen failed to show that she represented the relevant local ticket market. Summarized By: Vanessa Sheehan
-
Upload
reid-murtaugh -
Category
Documents
-
view
64 -
download
4
Transcript of Heerwagon v. Clear Channel Communication
Heerwagen v. Clear Channel Communication2nd Circuit Court of Appeals435 F.3d 219 (2nd Cir. 2006)
Key Search Terms: class certification, Sherman Act, antitrust,entertainment, FRCP 23, monopoly
FactsMalinda Heerwagen, an Illinois resident, attended ten concerts in the Chicagoarea between 1997 and 2004. She did not purchase or research ticket pricesfor any other market. Heerwagen brought this suit as a representative for anational class of victims, against Clear Channel Communications for violatingSection Two of the Sherman Antitrust Act. She claimed Clear Channel inflatedticket prices and monopolized the concert market. Clear ChannelCommunications is a Texas based company, which owns subsidiaries ClearChannel Radio, Inc. and Clear Channel Entertainment, Inc. In 2001 ClearChannel accounted for 70 percent of concert ticket revenue in the UnitedStates. Heerwagen sought certification as representative for a nationwide classof ticket purchasers injured by Clear Channels’ monopoly. Heerwagen claimsthat Clear Channel engaged in anticompetitive, predatory and exclusionarypractices to extend its monopoly power in the national market for concerttickets, violating § 2 of the Sherman Antitrust Act.
IssueThe issue on appeal is whether local market or the national market is morerelevenat and whether Heerwagen properly represented the relevant market.
HoldingThe 2nd Circuit affirmed the district court’s holding that Clear Channel did nothave the power to control national prices and exclude competition, soHeerwagen’s local market was more relevant. The 2nd Circuit reasoned thatHeerwagen failed to show her claim was relevant to a national market becauselocal markets for ticket sales are not transformed into national markets simplybecause concert tours are coordinated nationally. The court of appeals heldthat Heerwagen failed to show that she represented the relevant local ticketmarket.
Summarized By: Vanessa Sheehan
