## Facts

- Menasha Corporation, a paper-products manufacturer, entered the at-shelf coupon dispenser business using cardboard dispensers with four-color graphics.
- ActMedia introduced at-shelf coupon dispensers in 1991; the product later became owned by News America Marketing In-Store, Inc. and related entities (NAMIS).
- At-shelf dispensers are placed next to products and can be used as a promotional method, including to induce customers to try new or revised products.
- NAMIS used exclusive dealing with retailers, paying supermarkets a share of manufacturers’ fees in return for agreements limiting placement of rival dispensers nearby.
- After acquiring ActMedia, NAMIS owned more than half of all at-shelf coupon dispensers.
- Menasha did not use exclusive arrangements and alleged NAMIS’s exclusives excluded it from effective access to retailers and manufacturers.
- Menasha sued under federal antitrust law; the district court granted summary judgment for NAMIS, finding Menasha failed to show a relevant market or market power.

## Issues

1. Whether “at-shelf coupon dispensers” constitute a relevant antitrust product market distinct from other coupon distribution and promotional methods.
2. Whether NAMIS possessed market power in any properly defined relevant market.
3. Whether NAMIS’s exclusive dealing arrangements were unlawful absent proof of market power and substantial foreclosure.

## Decision

- The Seventh Circuit affirmed summary judgment for NAMIS.
- The court held Menasha did not produce evidence from which a reasonable juror could find that at-shelf coupon dispensers are a distinct relevant market.
- The court held Menasha failed to show market power; NAMIS’s share of at-shelf dispensers and evidence about pricing did not establish power given available substitutes.
- Because Menasha failed on market definition and market power, its exclusive-dealing-based antitrust theory could not proceed.

## Legal Principles

- Relevant market definition must rest on economic substitutability and cross-elasticity of demand, not a narrow category aligned with a plaintiff’s preferred business format.
- A large share of a narrowly defined product niche does not establish market power when customers can substitute other methods that constrain price and output.
- Pricing above marginal cost and correlation between share and price are not sufficient, without a properly defined market, to infer market power.
- Exclusive dealing is not per se unlawful; liability generally requires market power and meaningful foreclosure of competitive opportunities in a properly defined market.
- Antitrust law protects competition, not particular rivals or particular promotional formats.

## Conclusion

The court affirmed dismissal of Menasha’s antitrust claims because Menasha failed to show that at-shelf coupon dispensers were a distinct antitrust market or that NAMIS had market power; without those elements, NAMIS’s exclusive dealing arrangements were not actionable on the summary judgment record.


Menasha Corp. v. News Am. Mktg. In-Store, Inc., 354 F.3d 661 (7th Cir. 2004)