When a monopolist's exclusionary conduct would foreclose equally (or potentially equally) efficient rivals from accessing significant channels of distribution, is the monopolist's conduct anticompetitive under § 2 of the Sherman Act?

QUESTION PRESENTED | This Court has held that when a firm “attempt[s] to , exclude rivals on some basis other than efficiency,” that | conduct is unlawfully exclusionary. Aspen Skiing Co. v. | Aspen Highlands Skiing Corp., 472 U.S. 585, 605 (1985) | (citation and quotation marks omitted). A number of | lower courts have applied this principle to monopoliza| tion claims based on exclusive dealing, holding that a mo| nopolist’s exclusive contracts are anticompetitive if they | “can exclude equally efficient (or potentially equally effi| cient) rivals.” ZF Meritor, LLC v. Eaton Corp., 696 F.3d | 254, 281 (3d Cir. 2012). | Respondents’ EpiPen held a monopoly in the market | for devices to treat a life-threatening allergy condition. , When Petitioner launched the first true rival to EpiPen, | Respondents used their +90% durable monopoly share to | threaten—and indeed punish—market participants for | even considering purchasing a competing product from ‘ Petitioner. Respondents’ penalties were sufficient to exclude competition regardless of the rival’s efficiency or price—the largest: dealer in the United States informed Petitioner that even a 100% discount would not be enough to access consumers. That evidence would have been material under the approach endorsed by Third, : Sixth, Eleventh, and D.C. Circuits. Yet, the Tenth Circuit refused to consider it. : The question presented is: When a monopolist’s exclusionary conduct would foreclose equally (or potentially equally) efficient rivals from accessing significant channels of distribution, is the monopolist’s conduct anticompetitive under § 2 of the Sherman Act? (ii)