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
Judge Orders Apple to Address Fortnite App Block or Face Court Hearing
May 19, 2025 by
CPI
EU Civil Society Groups and Labor Unions Raise Alarm Over Proposed Changes to GDPR
May 19, 2025 by
CPI
EU Antitrust Regulators Push Back Deadline on UniCredit’s Takeover Bid for Banco BPM
May 19, 2025 by
CPI
Intel Challenges €376 Million EU Fine in Ongoing Antitrust Dispute
May 19, 2025 by
CPI
Red Bull Challenges EU Commission Over Lengthy Antitrust Inspection
May 19, 2025 by
CPI
Antitrust Mix by CPI
Antitrust Chronicle® – Healthcare Antitrust
May 14, 2025 by
CPI
Healthcare & Antitrust: What to Expect in the New Trump Administration
May 14, 2025 by
Nana Wilberforce, John W O'Toole & Sarah Pugh
Patent Gaming and Disparagement: Commission Fines Teva For Improperly Protecting Its Blockbuster Medicine
May 14, 2025 by
Blaž Višnar, Boris Andrejaš, Apostolos Baltzopoulos, Rieke Kaup, Laura Nistor & Gianluca Vassallo
Strategic Alliances in the Pharma Sector: An EU Competition Law Perspective
May 14, 2025 by
Christian Ritz & Benedikt Weiss
Monopsony Power in the Hospital Labor Market
May 14, 2025 by
Kevin E. Pflum & Christian Salas