Find Legal Information

FIRST DIVISION
April 22, 2002

Blue Line Publishing sued the Chicago Blackhawk hochey team,alleging that defendant violated the Illinois Antitrust Act (theAct) (740 ILCS 10/1 et seq. (West 1992)) by refusing to grant plaintiff media credentials. Plaintiff claimed that the refusalharmed competition for sales of programs for the hockey games. In an earlier appeal, this court held that the complaint stated aviable claim against defendant for attempting to monopolize themarket for game programs. Weinberg v. Chicago Blackhawk HockeyTeam, Inc., 274 Ill. App. 3d 637, 653 N.E.2d 1322 (1995). Thetrial court on remand granted summary judgment in favor of defendant, and plaintiff appeals. We affirm because the evidenceshows the alleged misconduct does not affect a substantial partof the trade or commerce of this state.

Defendant plays about 40 hockey games at home each regularseason, plus any playoff games for which the team qualifies. Foreach home game, defendant sells a program listing the lineups andproviding statistics and information about the teams competing inthat game.

Plaintiff first attempted to compete with defendant forsales of game programs during the 1990-91 hockey season. Despiterepeated requests, defendant never granted plaintiff mediacredentials, and defendant denied plaintiff access to players andcoaches for interviews. Plaintiff's program, called Blue Line,also provided lineups for the game and information and statisticsabout the competing teams. Defendant sold its program inside thebuilding where the game took place, which was either ChicagoStadium or the United Center. Plaintiff sold its program onstreets immediately surrounding the game site.

During the 1990-91 season defendant sold an average of 770programs per game, and plaintiff sold a few hundred per game. The next season plaintiff sold between 600 and 1,500 programs ateach game, averaging about 1,100 programs sold per game.Defendant's sales fell to barely 600 programs per game during theregular season, but the sales increased to 900 per game duringthe team's extended run through the playoffs.

Defendant's program sales remained in the hundreds per game,rarely exceeding 1,000 for any game for the next several years. Plaintiff continued printing 1,000 to 1,500 programs for eachgame and distributing any unsold programs to nearby outlets, forfree, after the game. Plaintiff sometimes had as many as 500programs unsold.

The price of defendant's program ranged from $3 to $5, while plaintiff gradually increased the price of Blue Line from $1 perprogram to $3.50 per program. While plaintiff's tax returns showmodest profits from program sales, defendant's witnessestestified that defendant never turned a profit on program sales.

The parties presented cross-motions for summary judgment. The court granted defendant's motion, holding that the programsdid not compete against each other in any relevant market.

On appeal, as in the trial court, plaintiff argues that itpresented sufficient evidence that Blue Line competed with defendant's program, providing spectators with informationdesigned to enhance enjoyment of the specific games for which theparties printed each program. The competition for sales tookplace inside and immediately outside Chicago Stadium and theUnited Center. According to plaintiff, defendant tried to useits monopoly over National Hockey League games in Chicago to gaina monopoly over sale of programs.

In the prior appeal this court agreed with plaintiff that itstated a cause of action for violation of section 3(3) of theAct. Weinberg, 274 Ill. App. 3d at 642-43. That sectionprovides that persons violate the Act if they:

"Establish, maintain, use, or attempt to acquiremonopoly power over any substantial part of trade orcommerce of this State for the purpose of excludingcompetition *** in such trade or commerce." 740 ILCS10/3(3) (West 1992).

Section 11 of the Act provides:

"When the wording of this Act is identical orsimilar to that of a federal antitrust law, the courtsof this State shall use the construction of the federallaw by the federal courts as a guide in construing thisAct." 740 ILCS 10/11 (West 1992).

Applying section 11, this court held that the Act bans the use ofpower in one market to extract monopolistic advantage in a secondmarket. Weinberg, 274 Ill. App. 3d at 640.

But the Act differs in some respects from federal antitrustlaw. The Act specifies that it applies only to monopolies of"any substantial part of trade or commerce of this State." TheSherman Act (15 U.S.C.