Whether the Seventh Circuit erred in holding that a refusal-to-deal claim under § 2 of the Sherman Act may proceed despite the presence of valid business justifications for the refusal

QUESTIONS PRESENTED In Aspen Skiing Co. v. Aspen Highlands Skiing Corp., 472 U.S. 585 (1985), the Court recognized a “limited exception” to the rule that unilateral refusals to deal with a rival are not actionable under § 2 of the Sherman Act. Verizon Commce’ns Inc. v. Law Offices of Curtis V. Trinko, LLP, 540 U.S. 398, 409 (2004). That exception is not available, and a refusal-to-deal claim fails, when there is “any efficiency justification” for the refusal. Aspen, 472 U.S. at 608. Moreover, an antitrust plaintiff may not circumvent the “reasoning of Trinko” by bringing an alternative § 2 claim that is premised on a lawful refusal to deal. Pac. Bell Tel. Co. v. Linkline Comme'ns, Inc., 555 U.S. 438, 450 (2009). The questions presented are: (1) whether the Seventh Circuit erred in holding that a refusal-to-deal claim under § 2 of the Sherman Act may proceed despite the presence of valid business justifications for the refusal, in direct conflict with Trinko and decisions of the Second, Ninth, Tenth, and Eleventh Circuits; and (2) whether the Seventh Circuit erred in allowing a plaintiff to avoid the limitations on a § 2 refusal-todeal claim by reframing it as some other form of anticompetitive conduct, such as tying, in direct conflict with Linkline and decisions of the Fourth, Ninth, and Tenth Circuits.