IDEAS home Printed from
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Vertical Leverage And The Sacrifice Principle: Why The Supreme Court Got Trinko Wrong




Trinko, a local telecommunications services customer of AT&T, sued Verizon for anti-competitively raising the costs of AT&T, Verizon's rival in the market for local telecommunications services. Pursuant to the rules of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, AT&T was leasing parts of the local telecommunications network (unbundled network elements, "UNEs") from Verizon at "cost plus reasonable profit" prices. The Supreme Court held that Trinko's complaint failed to state a claim under § 2 of the Sherman Act, and dismissed the complaint. I argue that the Court drew in- .correct inferences from its AsPen Skiing decision. The Court also missed a key vertical leveraging issue in Trinko. The opening of competition mandated by the Telecommunications Act of 1996 challenged Verizon's traditional monopoly in the local telecommunications services market. By raising the cost and/or decreasing the quality of the service of rivals in the retailing services market, Verizon aimed to preserve that monopoly. As a result of these efforts, rivals suffered a disadvantage. Yet Verizon also caused retailing rivals to lease a lower number of unbundled network elements and thus incurred a revenue sacrifice. Therefore the actions ofVerizon in raising the costs of retailing telecommunications services rivals are an indication of. liability according to the. "sacrifice principle" proposed in the Government's brief in Trinko, according to which a defendant is liable if its conduct "involves a sacrifice of short-term profits or goodwill that makes sense only insofar as it helps the defendant maintain or obtain monopoly power," even though the sacrifice principle defines a stringent condition for a finding of liability.

Suggested Citation

  • Nicholas Economides, 2005. "Vertical Leverage And The Sacrifice Principle: Why The Supreme Court Got Trinko Wrong," Working Papers 05-05, NET Institute, revised Nov 2005.
  • Handle: RePEc:net:wpaper:0505

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL:
    Download Restriction: no

    References listed on IDEAS

    1. Amelio, Andrea & Jullien, Bruno, 2012. "Tying and freebies in two-sided markets," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 30(5), pages 436-446.
    2. Nicholas Economides & Evangelos Katsamakas, 2005. "Linux vs. Windows: A comparison of application and platform innovation incentives for open source and proprietary software platforms+," Working Papers 05-03, NET Institute, revised Sep 2005.
    3. Mark Armstrong, 2006. "Competition in two‐sided markets," RAND Journal of Economics, RAND Corporation, vol. 37(3), pages 668-691, September.
    4. Jean‐Charles Rochet & Jean Tirole, 2006. "Two‐sided markets: a progress report," RAND Journal of Economics, RAND Corporation, vol. 37(3), pages 645-667, September.
    5. Jean-Charles Rochet & Jean Tirole, 2014. "Platform Competition in Two-Sided Markets," CPI Journal, Competition Policy International, vol. 10.
    6. Goolsbee Austan, 2006. "The Value of Broadband and the Deadweight Loss of Taxing New Technology," The B.E. Journal of Economic Analysis & Policy, De Gruyter, vol. 5(1), pages 1-31, April.
    7. Nicholas Economides, 2007. "“Net Neutrality,” Non-Discrimination and Digital Distribution of Content Through the Internet," Working Papers 07-03, NET Institute.
    8. Caillaud, Bernard & Jullien, Bruno, 2003. " Chicken & Egg: Competition among Intermediation Service Providers," RAND Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 34(2), pages 309-328, Summer.
    9. Volker Nocke & Martin Peitz & Konrad Stahl, 2007. "Platform Ownership," Journal of the European Economic Association, MIT Press, vol. 5(6), pages 1130-1160, December.
    10. Nicholas Economides & Benjamin E. Hermalin, 2012. "The economics of network neutrality," RAND Journal of Economics, RAND Corporation, vol. 43(4), pages 602-629, December.
    11. Nicholas Economides & Evangelos Katsamakas, 2006. "Two-Sided Competition of Proprietary vs. Open Source Technology Platforms and the Implications for the Software Industry," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 52(7), pages 1057-1071, July.
    12. Nicholas Economides, 2007. "Economics of the Internet," Working Papers 07-1, New York University, Leonard N. Stern School of Business, Department of Economics.
    13. Schuett Florian, 2010. "Network Neutrality: A Survey of the Economic Literature," Review of Network Economics, De Gruyter, vol. 9(2), pages 1-15, June.
    14. Musacchio John & Schwartz Galina & Walrand Jean, 2009. "A Two-Sided Market Analysis of Provider Investment Incentives with an Application to the Net-Neutrality Issue," Review of Network Economics, De Gruyter, vol. 8(1), pages 1-18, March.
    15. Christiaan Hogendorn, 2007. "Broadband Internet: net neutrality versus open access," International Economics and Economic Policy, Springer, vol. 4(2), pages 185-208, August.
    16. Jay Pil Choi, 2006. "Tying in Two-Sided Markets with Multi-Homing," Working Papers 06-04, NET Institute, revised Sep 2006.
    17. Keith M. Chen & Barry Nalebuff, 2006. "One-Way Essential Complements," Levine's Bibliography 321307000000000669, UCLA Department of Economics.
    18. E. Glen Weyl, 2010. "A Price Theory of Multi-sided Platforms," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 100(4), pages 1642-1672, September.
    19. Nicholas Economides, 2007. "Nonbanks in the payments system: vertical integration issues," Proceedings – Payments System Research Conferences, Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City.
    20. Jay Pil Choi & Byung-Cheol Kim, 2010. "Net neutrality and investment incentives," RAND Journal of Economics, RAND Corporation, vol. 41(3), pages 446-471.
    21. Krämer, Jan & Wiewiorra, Lukas, 2009. "Innovation through Discrimination!? A Formal Analysis of the Net Neutrality Debate," MPRA Paper 16655, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    22. Andrei Hagiu, 2009. "Two-Sided Platforms: Product Variety and Pricing Structures," Journal of Economics & Management Strategy, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 18(4), pages 1011-1043, December.
    23. Jan Kraemer & Lukas Wiewiorra, 2010. "Network Neutrality and Congestion Sensitive Content Providers: Implications for Service Innovation, Broadband Investment and Regulation," Working Papers 10-09, NET Institute, revised Sep 2010.
    24. Hermalin, Benjamin E. & Katz, Michael L., 2007. "The economics of product-line restrictions with an application to the network neutrality debate," Information Economics and Policy, Elsevier, vol. 19(2), pages 215-248, June.
    25. Yongmin Chen & Scott J Savage, 2011. "The Effects of Competition on the Price for Cable Modem Internet Access," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 93(1), pages 201-217, February.
    26. Rochet Jean-Charles & Tirole Jean, 2003. "An Economic Analysis of the Determination of Interchange Fees in Payment Card Systems," Review of Network Economics, De Gruyter, vol. 2(2), pages 1-11, June.
    27. repec:reg:rpubli:428 is not listed on IDEAS
    28. repec:rje:randje:v:37:y:2006:3:p:645-667 is not listed on IDEAS
    29. repec:rje:randje:v:37:y:2006:3:p:668-691 is not listed on IDEAS
    30. Wright Julian, 2004. "One-sided Logic in Two-sided Markets," Review of Network Economics, De Gruyter, vol. 3(1), pages 1-21, March.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    More about this item

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:


    Access and download statistics


    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:net:wpaper:0505. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Nicholas Economides). General contact details of provider: .

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service hosted by the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis . RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.