[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by benjulmag

The facts I am positing my question on are :

1. Company B has a stated policy of crossing over slabbed cards from company A that meet company B's criteria. If we are talking about Company A being SGC and Company B being PSA, unless things have changed, PSA will cross over SGC cards if they meet PSA's criteria.

2. It can be proven that the reason the cards will not be crossed over is some unstated rule that PSA wants to put SGC out of business and in furtherance of that end they will not cross over SGC cards.

3. The reason PSA gives in returning the cards not crossed over is that they do not satisfy PSA's criteria.

4. SGC loses a lot of customers and suffers significant damages.

5. In time PSA becomes the only remaining TPG in the hobby.


Under those facts (which let's assume can be proven), Peter, are you saying SGC has no actionable claim against PSA, and also that this has nothing to do with antitrust law?

There are so many issues with the hypothetical it's hard to accept it, the biggest one being that one company's refusal to take another's cards OFF the market (and thus leave them ON the market) somehow put that company out of business. It sounds absurd. SGC's existence depends on PSA legitimizing its product and putting its own brand on it? I mean come on. I can't even think of an analogy it seems so far-fetched. It would be, maybe, like Ford claiming GM has some obligation to endorse its cars, or that GM dealers are obligated to stock Ford parts and service Ford cars. Be that as it may, I don't think the antitrust laws would impose a duty on PSA to cross over its competitor's cards regardless of its intent. As I said, there are some narrow exceptions to the general principle that a monopolist may refuse to deal (term of art) with a competitor but I don't see one applying here.

PS the antitrust laws exist to protect and promote competition. SGC in your hypothetical should be looking to improve its product, not looking to PSA to legitimize it.