According to the Hollywood Reporter, in new court papers Landmark Theatres insists there is no antitrust conspiracy from seeking the exclusive rights to exhibit a movie in a geographic region as long as the theater chain is not using its nationwide footprint to coerce distributors.
Landmark is facing a lawsuit from a group of independent community movie theaters who complain about being deprived of art films. According to the complaint in a DC federal court, Landmark demanded and obtained clearances from those distributing such films as Moonlight, Birdman and The Illusionist. The plaintiffs, operating movie theaters in Washington, DC, Denver and Detroit, suggest Landmark accomplished this by exploiting its circuit power.
But in a motion to dismiss filed Friday, December 15, Landmark told the judge that plaintiffs have failed to spell out “who, what, when, where, or how” the indie-cinema giant leveraged its circuit power in communications with distributors over film licenses.
“Plaintiffs fail to allege facts sufficient to plausibly suggest that Landmark entered into any agreement with any distributor at any time at all,” reads the memorandum in support of dismissing the lawsuit. “Indeed, the most that can be gleaned from Plaintiffs’ allegations is that Landmark in some instances preferred to not show the same film as theaters located near its own in these three cities, and that unnamed distributors have agreed in certain situations to honor Landmark’s preference. Far from supporting an antitrust claim, these facts reveal a competitive market where distributors and exhibitors are unilaterally and rationally choosing the terms on which they do business with one another on a theater-by-theater, film-by-film, and city-by-city basis.”
Full Content: Hollywood Reporter
Want more news? Subscribe to CPI’s free daily newsletter for more headlines and updates on antitrust developments around the world.
Featured News
CFPB Allows Some Operations to Resume Amid Legal Challenge
Mar 6, 2025 by
CPI
NASCAR Accuses Michael Jordan’s Race Team of Illegal Cartel in Legal Battle
Mar 6, 2025 by
CPI
Healthcare Providers Sue BCBS Insurers Over Alleged Collusion
Mar 6, 2025 by
CPI
Indian Distributors File Antitrust Case Against Quick-Delivery Giants
Mar 6, 2025 by
CPI
EU Lawmakers Send Letter Rejecting Claims of Bias in Digital Rules
Mar 6, 2025 by
CPI
Antitrust Mix by CPI
Antitrust Chronicle® – Self-Preferencing
Feb 26, 2025 by
CPI
Platform Self-Preferencing: Focusing the Policy Debate
Feb 26, 2025 by
Michael Katz
Weaponized Opacity: Self-Preferencing in Digital Audience Measurement
Feb 26, 2025 by
Thomas Hoppner & Philipp Westerhoff
Self-Preferencing: An Economic Literature-Based Assessment Advocating a Case-By-Case Approach and Compliance Requirements
Feb 26, 2025 by
Patrice Bougette & Frederic Marty
Self-Preferencing in Adjacent Markets
Feb 26, 2025 by
Muxin Li