{
  "id": "RS21723",
  "type": "CRS Report",
  "typeId": "REPORTS",
  "number": "RS21723",
  "active": false,
  "source": "EveryCRSReport.com",
  "versions": [
    {
      "source": "EveryCRSReport.com",
      "id": 306944,
      "date": "2005-08-01",
      "retrieved": "2016-04-07T19:36:25.725029",
      "title": "Verizon Communications, Inc. v. Trinko: Telecommunications Consumers Cannot Use Antitrust Laws to Remedy Access Violations of Telecommunications Act",
      "summary": "In  Verizon Communications, Inc. v. Law Offices of Curtis V. Trinko  (540 U.S.  398\n2004), the\nSupreme Court denied the antitrust claim advanced by a consumer of telecommunications services\nagainst a local exchange carrier that had previously been subject to regulatory discipline by both the\nFederal Communications Commission and the New York Public Service Commission. According\nto the Court, the fact that Verizon had been found to have breached its duty under the\nTelecommunications Act of 1996 to adequately share its network with telecommunications\ncompanies -- including AT&T, which provided service to Trinko -- wishing to provide\ncompetitive\nlocal exchange services did not provide sufficient basis for finding a violation of the antitrust laws.\n Although Congress included \u201can antitrust-specific savings clause\u201d to emphasize\nthat neither the\nact nor any amendment to it should \u201cbe construed to modify, impair, or supersede the\napplicability\nof any of the antitrust laws,\u201d \u201cthe act does not create new claims that go beyond\nexisting antitrust\nstandards.\u201d The three Justices who concurred separately in the judgment would not even\nhave\nreached the merits of the case, finding instead that Trinko\u2019s derivative injury did not afford\nhim the\n\u201cfirst step,\u201d standing to bring the case. The decision was received unfavorably by\nboth the chairman\nand ranking minority member of the House Judiciary Committee, who introduced legislation in the\n108th Congress to remedy the antitrust defect noted by the Court; and with approval by the chairman\nof the House Energy and Commerce Committee. This report will be updated to reflect further,\nsignificant congressional action.",
      "type": "CRS Report",
      "typeId": "REPORTS",
      "active": false,
      "formats": [
        {
          "format": "HTML",
          "encoding": "utf-8",
          "url": "http://www.crs.gov/Reports/RS21723",
          "sha1": "b683bf3cd699fab98e17aa6d9489178a50f3c04e",
          "filename": "files/20050801_RS21723_b683bf3cd699fab98e17aa6d9489178a50f3c04e.html",
          "images": null
        },
        {
          "format": "PDF",
          "encoding": null,
          "url": "http://www.crs.gov/Reports/pdf/RS21723",
          "sha1": "d2e66fdf11f6a84b0fdcc746fd081ce6fd157b46",
          "filename": "files/20050801_RS21723_d2e66fdf11f6a84b0fdcc746fd081ce6fd157b46.pdf",
          "images": null
        }
      ],
      "topics": []
    }
  ],
  "topics": []
}