## Facts

- Mark Weinberg published and sold *The Blue Line*, an unofficial program for Chicago Blackhawks home games, outside the arena.
- The Chicago Blackhawk Hockey Team, Inc. produced and sold its official program, *Face Off*, inside the arena.
- *The Blue Line* became a strong competitor and, by the early 1990s, regularly outsold *Face Off*; Weinberg alleged sales data showing his gains and the team’s declines.
- Weinberg repeatedly requested media/press credentials that would have provided access to players, coaches, and team facilities for interviews and game-related information.
- The Blackhawks refused to grant credentials and denied access for interviews.
- Weinberg alleged a Blackhawks official linked the credential denial to *The Blue Line*’s sales success and competition with *Face Off*.
- Weinberg claimed the credential refusal impaired his ability to gather content needed to compete in the market for game programs associated with Blackhawks home games.

## Issues

1. Whether the complaint sufficiently alleged a relevant market for game programs sold in connection with Chicago Blackhawks home games under the Illinois Antitrust Act.
2. Whether denying media/press credentials to a rival program publisher could constitute exclusionary conduct supporting an attempted monopolization claim.
3. Whether the allegations plausibly supported specific intent to monopolize and a dangerous probability of achieving monopoly power at the pleading stage.

## Decision

- The appellate court reversed the trial court’s dismissal of the complaint.
- The court held the complaint stated a legally cognizable claim for attempted monopolization under the Illinois Antitrust Act.
- The court accepted, for pleading purposes, the alleged relevant market for game programs tied to Blackhawks home games.
- The court found the alleged credential denial, especially when tied to competitive success, could support an inference of exclusionary conduct and specific intent.
- The court concluded the allegations were sufficient to plead a dangerous probability of success given the team’s control over game-related access and its role as a competing seller.

## Legal Principles

- An attempted monopolization claim under the Illinois Antitrust Act requires allegations of: (1) specific intent to monopolize, (2) anticompetitive or exclusionary conduct, and (3) a dangerous probability of achieving monopoly power in a relevant market.
- At the motion-to-dismiss stage, a complaint is sufficient if it alleges facts that, if proved, would entitle the plaintiff to relief under notice-pleading standards.
- A relevant market may be plausibly alleged where the product is tied to a specific event, place, and time (here, game programs sold in connection with a team’s home games).
- A refusal to provide a key input or access controlled by a competitor may be actionable as exclusionary conduct when plausibly alleged to be aimed at impairing a rival’s ability to compete rather than serving neutral access policies.

## Conclusion

The court held that the allegations—defining a game-program market connected to Blackhawks home games and describing a credential denial allegedly motivated by suppressing a successful rival—were sufficient to plead attempted monopolization under Illinois antitrust law, making dismissal at the pleading stage improper.


Weinberg v. Chicago Blackhawk Hockey Team, Inc., 274 Ill. App. 3d 637, 653 N.E.2d 1322 (Ill. App. Ct. 1st Dist. 1995)