Failure to Define Relevant Market Dooms Racetrack's Claims

This posting was written by Jeffrey May, editor of CCH Trade Regulation Reporter.

Antitrust claims against an operator of a thoroughbred racetrack in Hallandale, Florida, were properly dismissed, according to the U.S. Court of Appeals in Atlanta, because an operator of a thoroughbred racetrack in Tampa failed to establish a valid relevant market.

Without a properly-defined relevant market, the complaining competitor was unable to prove an anticompetitive effect resulting from challenged exclusive dissemination agreements with pari-mutuel venues.

An expert for the Tampa-based track contended that the relevant market was out-of-state thoroughbred racing signals during the months that both tracks were operating. However, the testimony was conclusory and based on insufficient economic analysis, the appeals court ruled.

The decision is Gulfstream Park Racing Assn., Inc. v. Tampa Bay Downs, Inc., No. 03-16272, March 5, 2007.