## Facts

- Sorbothane, a patented shock-absorbing polymer, was manufactured through subsidiaries controlled by the patent owner and sold through distributors.
- Shirley and Larry McQuillan operated as regional distributors of sorbothane products in the Southwest and had obtained distribution rights that included athletic and equestrian products.
- Spectrum Sports, Inc., and its co-owner Kenneth B. Leighton, Jr. distributed sorbothane products in another region.
- After a restructuring of distribution, the manufacturer sought to alter or remove the McQuillans’ athletic and equestrian distribution rights, including pressuring them to sell the athletic distributorship.
- During negotiations, Leighton, Jr. allegedly told Shirley McQuillan that if she did not reach agreement she would be “looking for work.”
- The McQuillans refused to sell; another firm was appointed national equestrian distributor, and the McQuillans were informed they were no longer involved in equestrian products.
- The McQuillans’ business failed, and they sued Spectrum, the Leightons, and others, asserting, among other claims, violations of Sherman Act § 2.

## Issues

1. Whether a plaintiff may prove attempted monopolization under Sherman Act § 2 solely by showing “unfair or predatory conduct,” without proving a relevant market, the defendant’s market power, and a dangerous probability of achieving monopoly power.
2. Whether jury instructions permitting inference of both specific intent and dangerous probability from predatory conduct alone correctly state the law governing attempted monopolization.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court unanimously reversed and remanded.
- The Court rejected the rule allowing attempted-monopolization liability to be found without proof of a dangerous probability of achieving monopoly power in a defined relevant market.
- The Court held that attempted monopolization requires proof of: (1) predatory or anticompetitive conduct, (2) specific intent to monopolize, and (3) a dangerous probability of achieving monopoly power in the relevant market.
- Predatory or unfair conduct may support an inference of specific intent, but it cannot by itself establish the dangerous probability element.

## Legal Principles

- Attempted monopolization under Sherman Act § 2 requires proof of (1) predatory or anticompetitive conduct, (2) specific intent to monopolize, and (3) dangerous probability of success.
- The “dangerous probability” element requires inquiry into the relevant product and geographic market and the defendant’s economic power in that market.
- Intent alone, or evidence of predatory tactics alone, is insufficient to establish a dangerous probability of monopolization.
- Antitrust law protects competition rather than individual competitors; liability should not be imposed based only on conduct labeled “unfair” without market-based proof showing a genuine threat of monopoly power.

## Conclusion

The Court held that Sherman Act § 2 attempted-monopolization claims require market definition and proof that the defendant’s conduct, combined with its market power, created a dangerous probability of achieving monopoly power; predatory conduct alone cannot substitute for that showing.


Spectrum Sports, Inc. v. McQuillan, 506 U.S. 447 (1993)