The last two days have seen some major developments in the Redbox vs. studios drama. Both Fox and Warner Brothers have filed motions to dismiss Redbox’s lawsuits against them, which Fox has referred to as “meritless”.
In Fox’s filing, the studio stated the following reasons why it feels Redbox does not have a viable case:
—It hasn’t refused to supply Redbox with DVDs—the two companies just could not agree on pricing and other terms.
—Fox could have chosen to keep all its movies out of Redbox’s kiosks once the negotiations fell apart, but it didn’t. Instead, it told third-party distributors to wait 30 days after a DVD release before they could sell it to Redbox
—Antitrust law does not require a seller to make its product available to a buyer on all the buyer’s terms (price, distribution channel, or date); it’s only applicable if the deal terms “injure competition.”
On the Warner side, their filing had the following to say:
“By transforming a business negotiation relating to the terms with which it may deal with Warner into an antitrust suit, Redbox hopes to gain leverage at the bargaining table,’ . . . “Assisting one party over another in business negotiations is not the purpose of the antitrust laws. Nor are they meant to protect any particular merchant’s margins or input costs. Indeed, the antitrust laws are intended to protect competition and are indifferent to the fate of any particular merchant. It is therefore no surprise that Redbox’s allegations against Warner fall far short of what is required to state an actionable claim.”
These motions contain some interesting arguments, but it remains to be seen if the studios will be successful in having Redbox’s suits thrown out. Many commenters on this site have already made up their minds which side of this fight they are on. The question is, does hearing more of the studios’ side of the argument now change your opinion in any way?