Corporate & Securities Law

District Court Dismisses Claims Because of Insufficient Proof of Market Definition

By Matthew S. Wild

January 7, 2008.  In Kentucky Speedway, LLC v. Nat’l Ass’n of Stock Car Auto Racing, Inc., Civil Action No. 05-138 (WOB), 2008 WL 113987 (E.D.K.y. Jan. 7, 2008), the district court granted summary judgment dismissing plaintiff’s Section 1 and 2 claims.   Kentucky Speedway sued because NASCAR refused to sponsor a NEXTEL race at its track.  The Court considered it a “jilted distributor” case.  It found that Kentucky Speedway failed to come forward with sufficient proof of relevant product market — an essential of element of both its Section 1 and 2 claims.   It rejected the proposed relevant markets of a sanctioning market for the NEXTEL race and a hosting market for the same race.  It granted NASCAR’s Daubert motion to exclude Kentucky Speedway’s expert because he did no study to determine the cross-elasticity of demand between NEXTEL races and other potential substitutes such sporting events in general.  Rather, Kentucky Speedway’s expert assumed only that a Bush NASCAR race event was a potential substitute.

Full post as published by Antitrust Commentary on February 25, 2008 (boomark / email).