Claims Of Providing Truthful Marketing Information To Airports Issuing Bids For Duty Free Shops Fails To Allege Actionable Conspiracy Or Attempted Monopolization

Conclusary allegations of parallel business conduct which are in the economic self-interest of the actor do not state an actionable antitrust claim. Duty Free Americas, Inc. v. The Estée Lauder Companies, Inc., Case O: 12-cv-60741-RNF (S.D. Fla. May 9, 2013).

Duty Free Americas, Inc. (DFA) is an operator of duty-free beauty products stores in airports. For a period of years, it purchased products from Estée Lauder Companies, Inc. (ELC). ELC is the largest manufacturer of beauty products sold in duty-free shops in US airports. According to a complaint filed by DFA in the U.S. District Court, Southern District of Florida, ELC's marketshare is "approximately 50% or greater".

DFA's complaint alleged that ELC periodically issued suggested resale prices for its airport duty-free shop customers. ELC issued an announcement of a prospective suggested increase in the retail price to be charged in 2008. DFA refused to follow ELC's suggested prices. Thereafter, ELC, refused to sell further product to DFA.

DFA filed suit filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida, alleging that ELC violated Sections 1 and 2 of the Sherman Act by conspiring with DFA's competitors to exclude it from the airport duty-free beauty products market. ELC allegedly did so by influencing the airports to award bids to companies that were purchasers and resellers of ELC cosmetic products.

The complaint alleged that ELC had engaged in exclusionary conduct, in a conspiracy with DFA's competitors, and attempted to monopolize of the duty-free airport beauty products market by submitting unsolicited letters to Newark, Atlanta, Orlando and Boston airports, which had issued requests for proposals for the right to operate a duty-free beauty products market at the airport. The letters pointed out that DFA did not handle ELC products, and that ELC products were essential to the success of the duty-free store. The letter also highlighted and promoted ELC's duty-free purchasers, who arguably, also submitted responses to the request for proposals from the airports. DFA thus alleged that ELC had conspired with its purchasers, who were DFA's competitors for airport duty-free shop establishment, and that it had attempted to squeeze DFA out of the airport duty-free beauty products store market, in violation of Section 1 and 2 of the Sherman Act.

ELC moved to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a claim. In granting the motion, the court went through the now...