Sunbeam Television Corp. v. Nielsen Media Research, Inc.
711 F.3d 1264
11th Cir.2013Background
- Nielsen holds national and local monopoly power in television audience measurement.
- Sunbeam, a Nielsen customer in Miami, alleges Nielsen’s switch to LPM caused Sunbeam’s WSVN ratings and revenue to plummet.
- LPM replaces the Meter-Diary method; Sunbeam claims LPM undercounts its audience and is inferior.
- District court granted partial summary judgment, finding Sunbeam lacked antitrust standing.
- Sunbeam contends excluded competitors (Arbitron, ADcom, erinMedia) would have entered but for Nielsen’s conduct.
- Court affirms ruling, holding Sunbeam failed to prove efficient enforcer standing.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Antitrust standing required for Sunbeam under §2 and FAA | Sunbeam seeks damages as an indirect injured party | Standing requires efficient enforcer with proper nexus | Sunbeam lacks standing; efficient enforcer not shown. |
| Efficient enforcer: must prove willing and able competitor would enter but for exclusion | Excluded firms would have entered but for Nielsen | No willing/able entrant shown | No genuine issue of willing/able entrant; standing lacking. |
| Causation of injury from exclusionary conduct must be shown | LPM caused Sunbeam’s antitrust injury | Injury too remote; not direct causal link | Injury not sufficiently linked to exclusionary conduct for standing. |
Key Cases Cited
- Palmyra Park Hosp., Inc. v. Phoebe Putney Mem’l Hosp., 604 F.3d 1291 (11th Cir. 2010) (two-prong test: antitrust injury and efficient enforcer)
- Todorov v. DCH Healthcare Auth., 921 F.2d 1438 (11th Cir. 1991) (antitrust standing requires balancing harm, wrongdoing, and relationship)
- Associated Gen. Contractors of Cal., Inc. v. Cal. State Council of Carpenters, 103 S. Ct. 2490 (1983) (broad balancing approach to standing; not a bright-line rule)
- Gas Utils. Co. of Alabama, Inc. v. Southern Nat. Gas Co., 996 F.2d 282 (11th Cir. 1993) (preparedness and entry concepts for estimating willing entrants)
- Cable Holdings of Ga., Inc. v. Home Video, Inc., 825 F.2d 1559 (11th Cir. 1987) (entry/exit considerations for antitrust standing)