## Facts

- Western Union operated the dominant telex transmission service and historically also leased telex terminal equipment.
- Following FCC action requiring competition in terminal equipment, independent terminal lessors entered the market; Olympia formed to lease telex terminals to customers using Western Union’s network.
- Western Union initially supported independent terminal lessors by allowing sales personnel to refer transmission customers to terminal vendors and by supplying vendor information.
- Olympia relied heavily on Western Union’s referrals and vendor-list practices.
- Western Union later changed its incentives and practices, reduced or ended referral support, stopped providing vendor lists on prior terms, and focused on selling or liquidating its own terminal inventory.
- Olympia’s business declined substantially and it sued alleging Sherman Act § 2 monopolization/attempted monopolization and a state-law breach of contract based on alleged promises of continued support.
- A jury awarded Olympia roughly $12 million in antitrust damages (trebled to about $36 million) and about $12 million on the contract claim (about $48 million total).

## Issues

1. Whether Western Union’s withdrawal of referrals/vendor information and its decision to compete directly in terminal leasing constituted monopolization or attempted monopolization under Sherman Act § 2.
2. Whether Western Union’s conduct and statements created an enforceable contract obligating it to continue providing referrals, vendor lists, or comparable support to Olympia.
3. Whether the jury’s lost-profit damages were sufficiently supported or were impermissibly speculative.

## Decision

- The Seventh Circuit reversed the judgment for Olympia and directed judgment for Western Union.
- The court held Western Union did not violate Sherman Act § 2 by ending assistance to Olympia and competing for terminal-equipment business.
- The court held no enforceable contract required Western Union to continue referrals or vendor-list support.
- The court found the damages theory relied on speculative projections inconsistent with market realities, reinforcing that the verdict lacked evidentiary support.

## Legal Principles

- A firm with monopoly power generally has no antitrust duty to assist competitors or to continue voluntary cooperation absent special circumstances creating a legally cognizable duty.
- Conduct that harms a rival is not exclusionary under § 2 unless it improperly restricts competition (as opposed to reflecting ordinary, self-interested competition).
- Contract liability requires a definite promise and intent to be legally bound; informal encouragement, cooperation, and indefinite expectations typically do not create enforceable obligations.
- Antitrust and contract lost-profit awards must be grounded in reliable evidence; future-profit projections in competitive, changing markets are scrutinized for speculation.

## Conclusion

The Seventh Circuit set aside a large verdict against Western Union, ruling that ending voluntary referrals and vendor support to a terminal lessor was not exclusionary conduct under Sherman Act § 2, that no definite promise created a continuing contractual duty, and that Olympia’s claimed lost profits were too speculative to sustain the judgment.


Olympia Equipment Leasing Co. v. W. Union Tel. Co., 797 F.2d 370 (7th Cir. 1986)