The National Law Journal has run an article recounting the history of the legal battle currently being waged between Redbox and several Hollywood studios. The article goes into some detail discussing recent developments in Redbox’s antitrust suits, and outlines what Redbox will have to accomplish in order to carry the day in court:
“To successfully sue under Section 1 of the Sherman Act in a distributor case, Redbox has to do four things: define the relevant market at issue, prove that the defendant has substantial power in that market, outline why the defendant’s acts aren’t reasonable business decisions and demonstrate the detrimental effect those acts have had on the market.”
Unfortunately for Redbox, recent U.S. Supreme Court precedents “have really put limits on the ability of distributors to make these kinds of complaints,” according to attorney Daniel Swanson, who is the Los Angeles-based co-chairman of the antitrust practice group at the firm of Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher. Swanson summed up his opinon of how Redbox’s case will proceed thusly:
“If I were a betting man, I’d bet they’re not going to be in court all that long,”
Corey Watson of Kirkland & Ellis, who is one of the attorneys representing Fox, is also quoted in the article. He had the following to say about Redbox’s litigation:
“The real complaint is Fox won’t sell DVDs to Redbox on the terms Redbox demands, and that is not in our view an antitrust violation. . . There’s nothing in the law, antitrust or otherwise, that says a seller must sell its product at the price that the buyer demands on the date the buyer demands and through the distribution channel that the buyer demands.”
While it’s not surprising an attorney for one of the defendants would dismiss the merits of Redbox’s case, Swanson’s opinion could be slightly more troubling for the kiosk operator, and contrasts with analyst Eric Wold’s recent comments. To the comments, Insiders, and let us know which way you think the wind is blowing in this fight.
[via The National Law Journal]