Antitrust Law Daily Wrap Up, ANTITRUST—NYSCt: New York Antitrust Claims over Restrictions on Taxi Cab Advertising Fail, (May 6, 2013)
Law Firms Mentioned:Mandel Bhandari LLP | Reed Smith LLP
Organizations Mentioned:Astra Media Group, LLC | CC Media Holdings, Inc. | Clear Channel Outdoor Holdings, Inc. | Clear Channel Taxi Media, LLC | Mandel Bhandari, LLP | Reed Smith, LLP
By Tobias J. Gillett, J.D., LL.M.
A provider of rooftop advertising for taxicabs in New York City has failed to adequately plead claims under New York’s Donnelly Act against a competitor and the New York Taxi and Limousine Commission (NYTLC), a New York Supreme Court has ruled (Astra Media Group, LLC v. Clear Channel Taxi Media, LLC, May 1, 2013, Wright, G.).
Astra Media Group, LLC competes with Clear Channel in providing rooftop advertising on taxicabs in New York City. In 2007, the NYTLC changed its rules to prohibit static four-sided signs, a change adopted in the Rules of the City of New York. Prior to the rule change, Astra apparently held a monopoly or near-monopoly on that variety of sign.
Astra filed suit against Clear Channel Taxi Media, LLC, Clear Channel Outdoor Holdings, Inc., CC Media Holdings, Inc., and the NYTLC, asserting claims for violation of New York’s Donnelly Act, among other claims. The defendants filed motions to dismiss.
The court first granted the NYTLC’s motion, noting that Astra had failed to serve a notice of claim on the City, as required by Admin. Code 7-201. Moreover, the court noted that there was "no civil action for conspiracy."
Moreover, in order to plead a violation of the Donnelly Act, a plaintiff had to "allege a conspiracy or a reciprocal relationship between two or more legal or economic entities, identify the relevant market affected, describe the nature and effect of the alleged conspiracy and the manner in which the economic impact of that conspiracy restrains trade in the market." Astra failed to identify any individuals or any "reciprocal promises in restraint of trade." Further, "reading the complaint, in conjunction with all of the other submissions, [left] only the issue of expanding a market, not shrinking it," in the court’s view.
The same lack of specificity also doomed Astra’s claims for tortious interference with existing contracts and tortious interference with potential contracts, according to the court. Furthermore, since Astra and Clear Channel had equal access to the NYTLC, Astra’s claim for unfair competition also failed. Clear Channel could not "be penalized for being persuasive," the court observed. Moreover, Astra provided no evidence of any confidential relationship between Astra and Clear Channel, or of any "misappropriation of any labor, skill or good will" to support its unfair competition claim.
Therefore, the court dismissed the Donnelly Act, tortious interference, and unfair competition claims, although it permitted a claim for conversion of property to proceed.
The case is No. 600793/09.
Attorneys: Evan Mandel (Mandel Bhandari LLP) for Astra Media Group, LLC. Gil Feder (Reed Smith LLP) for Clear Channel Taxi Media, LLC.
Companies: Astra Media Group, LLC; Clear Channel Taxi Media, LLC; Clear Channel Outdoor Holdings, Inc.; CC Media Holdings, Inc.
Cases: Antitrust NewYorkNews