## Facts

- A publisher in New Orleans owned a morning newspaper (Times-Picayune) and an evening newspaper (States); the sole daily competitor was an independent evening newspaper (New Orleans Item).
- The publisher sold general display and classified advertising under “unit” contracts requiring advertisers to buy combined insertions in both the morning and evening papers, not in either paper alone.
- The United States filed a civil enforcement action under §§ 1 and 2 of the Sherman Act, alleging the unit contracts were an unreasonable restraint of trade and an attempt to monopolize.
- The district court found violations of §§ 1 and 2 and enjoined continued use of the unit advertising contracts.
- The publisher appealed; the United States cross-appealed seeking broader relief.

## Issues

1. Whether requiring advertisers to purchase combined morning-and-evening advertising space constituted an unlawful tying arrangement or unreasonable restraint of trade under § 1 of the Sherman Act.
2. Whether the unit advertising plan constituted attempted monopolization of an appreciable part of commerce under § 2 of the Sherman Act.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court reversed the judgment imposing liability under §§ 1 and 2 and set aside the injunction.
- The Court held the record did not establish an unlawful tying arrangement under § 1 because the publisher lacked the necessary dominance in the relevant tying-market for newspaper advertising in New Orleans.
- The Court concluded the evidence did not prove unreasonable restraint of trade or harm to competition attributable to the unit contracts.
- The Court rejected the § 2 claim because the record did not show the intent and dangerous probability of success required for attempted monopolization.

## Legal Principles

- A tying arrangement violates Sherman Act § 1 when the seller has market power (dominance) in the tying product and the tie restrains a not-insubstantial volume of commerce in the tied product; the central concern is use of monopolistic leverage from one market into another.
- In evaluating alleged tying involving advertising, the relevant inquiry is dominance in the advertising market, not dominance in readership.
- Market power for tying analysis must be assessed in the whole relevant market, not by isolating a preferred submarket segment to inflate dominance.
- Unlawful tying generally involves coercing purchase of a second distinct product and producing competitive injury in a separate tied market; absent proof of such distinctness and competitive harm, § 1 liability is not established.
- Sherman Act § 2 attempted monopolization requires proof of specific intent and a dangerous probability of achieving monopoly power in an appreciable part of commerce.

## Conclusion

The Court held that selling advertising only on a combined morning-and-evening basis did not violate the Sherman Act on this record because the publisher lacked sufficient market dominance in the relevant advertising market and the evidence did not show the competitive harm, coercion of a distinct tied market, or the intent and probability of success necessary for attempted monopolization.


Times-Picayune Publ'g Co. v. United States, 345 U.S. 594 (1953)