A few months ago, DVD rental kiosk company Redbox sued Warner Home Video, 20th Century Fox Home Entertainment and Universal Studios Home Entertainment over alleged violations of anti-trust laws over their decision to not allow the rental company to have their films until 30-45 days after release date.
As of this week however, both Fox and Warner are seeking to have the lawsuit dismissed.
Says Fox: "Redbox’s legal claims are fatally flawed. Fox’s filing today makes clear that, in the end, the case is all about Redbox’s refusal to make a business deal on general terms similar to those paid by others in the industry. Unable to get the terms it wanted at the bargaining table, Redbox instead decided to file this meritless lawsuit."
Says the Fox filing: “Antitrust law does not require a seller to provide its product through the distribution channel that the buyer demands, on the date that the buyer demands, or at the price that the buyer demands,.To the contrary, sellers have considerable freedom under the law to sell [or not sell] to whomever they want, how they want and when they want. To this end, a seller’s distribution policies do not violate [antitrust law] unless the plaintiff proves a contract, combination or conspiracy that injures competition. Redbox cannot meet any of these elements.”
In their filing, Warner noted: “By transforming a business negotiation relating to the terms with which it may deal with Warner into an antitrust suit, Redbox hopes to gain leverage at the bargaining table. Assisting one party over another in business negotiations is not the purpose of the antitrust laws. Nor are they meant to protect any particular merchant’s margins or input costs. Indeed, the antitrust laws are intended to protect competition and are indifferent to the fate of any particular merchant. It is therefore no surprise that Redbox’s allegations against Warner fall far short of what is required to state an actionable claim.”
Redbox has not responded to the filings yet.
Says Fox: "Redbox’s legal claims are fatally flawed. Fox’s filing today makes clear that, in the end, the case is all about Redbox’s refusal to make a business deal on general terms similar to those paid by others in the industry. Unable to get the terms it wanted at the bargaining table, Redbox instead decided to file this meritless lawsuit."
Says the Fox filing: “Antitrust law does not require a seller to provide its product through the distribution channel that the buyer demands, on the date that the buyer demands, or at the price that the buyer demands,.To the contrary, sellers have considerable freedom under the law to sell [or not sell] to whomever they want, how they want and when they want. To this end, a seller’s distribution policies do not violate [antitrust law] unless the plaintiff proves a contract, combination or conspiracy that injures competition. Redbox cannot meet any of these elements.”
In their filing, Warner noted: “By transforming a business negotiation relating to the terms with which it may deal with Warner into an antitrust suit, Redbox hopes to gain leverage at the bargaining table. Assisting one party over another in business negotiations is not the purpose of the antitrust laws. Nor are they meant to protect any particular merchant’s margins or input costs. Indeed, the antitrust laws are intended to protect competition and are indifferent to the fate of any particular merchant. It is therefore no surprise that Redbox’s allegations against Warner fall far short of what is required to state an actionable claim.”
Redbox has not responded to the filings yet.
