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
Boeing to Sell Key Digital Aviation Units to Thoma Bravo in $10.55 Billion Deal
Apr 22, 2025 by
CPI
Claus-Dieter Ehlermann, Key Figure in EU Antitrust Policy, Dies at 94
Apr 22, 2025 by
CPI
Instagram Co-Founder Claims Zuckerberg Starved It of Resources After Acquisition
Apr 22, 2025 by
CPI
Binance Advises Governments on Crypto Rules and Digital Asset Reserves
Apr 22, 2025 by
CPI
OpenAI Eyes Chrome If DOJ Forces Google to Sell Browser, Exec Testifies
Apr 22, 2025 by
CPI
Antitrust Mix by CPI
Antitrust Chronicle® – Mergers in Digital Markets
Apr 21, 2025 by
CPI
Catching a Killer? Six “Genetic Markers” to Assess Nascent Competitor Acquisitions
Apr 21, 2025 by
John Taladay & Christine Ryu-Naya
Digital Decoded: Is There More Scope for Digital Mergers In 2025?
Apr 21, 2025 by
Colin Raftery, Michele Davis, Sarah Jensen & Martin Dickson
AI In the Mix – An Ever-Evolving Approach to Jurisdiction Over Digital Mergers in Europe
Apr 21, 2025 by
Ingrid Vandenborre & Ketevan Zukakishvili
Antitrust Enforcement Errors Due to a Failure to Understand Organizational Capabilities and Dynamic Competition
Apr 21, 2025 by
Magdalena Kuyterink & David J. Teece