Essential facilities doctrine

[1] The basic elements of a legal claim under this doctrine under United States antitrust law, which a plaintiff is required to show to establish liability, are: The U.S. Supreme Court's ruling in Verizon v. Trinko, 540 U.S. 398 (2004), in effect added a fifth element: absence of regulatory oversight from an agency (the Federal Communications Commission, in that case) with power to compel access.

It is quite difficult for a plaintiff to demonstrate that a particular facility is "essential" to entry into and/or competition within the relevant market.

The plaintiff must demonstrate that the "facility" must be something so indispensable to entry or competition that it would be impossible for smaller firms to compete with the market leader.

The first notable case to address the anti-competitive implications of an essential facility was the Supreme Court's judgment in United States v. Terminal Railroad Association, 224 U.S. 383 (1912).

Antitrust Law, Policy, and Procedure: Cases, Materials, and Problems, Fifth Edition.