Aspen Skiing Co. v. Aspen Highlands Skiing Corp.

Background

A large resort operator that runs three of Aspen’s ski mountains and a smaller rival that runs the fourth had long sold a convenient multiday, four‑mountain ticket whose revenue was shared based on actual usage. After the larger company acquired additional facilities it proposed and then terminated that joint four‑area ticket, offered its own three‑area product, refused several reasonable alternatives from the smaller operator, and ran advertising that downplayed the rival’s mountain. The smaller operator sued, a jury found the larger firm had monopoly power and had willfully used that power to harm competition, and the trial court awarded treble damages and ordered joint ticketing relief.

Reasoning

The Court explained that a monopolist has no absolute duty to cooperate, but a refusal to deal can still be evidence of exclusionary, anticompetitive conduct when a firm abandons a longstanding cooperative arrangement without valid business reasons. The jury was instructed to distinguish legitimate competition from conduct designed mainly to exclude rivals; it found no valid business justification here. The Court reviewed the record — the termination of the joint ticket, refusal to accept substitute vouchers, targeted marketing, and willingness to sacrifice short‑run sales — and concluded the evidence could support the jury’s finding of anticompetitive intent and injury to competition.

Real world impact

The decision affirms that companies with monopoly power may be liable when they abandon long‑standing cooperative marketing and refuse reasonable alternatives to harm a rival. Courts can award damages and order remedies restoring cooperative arrangements when the record shows exclusionary intent and consumer harm.