This section contains the nature of the case and procedural background.

D owns 76% of the stock of ADT, 89% of the stock of AFA, and 100% of the stock of Holmes. ADT provides both burglary and fire protection services; Holmes provides burglary services alone; AFA supplies only fire protection service. Each offers a central station service under which hazard-detecting devices installed on the protected premises automatically transmit an electric signal to a central station. Upon receipt of a signal, the central station dispatches guards to the protected premises and notifies the police or fire departments. These three companies control over 87% of the business for central station services. Alternatives existed for those who did not use D. Insurance companies gave lower rates to companies who used central station services. D could not set prices because of competition. P brought suit against D for violation of §2. The court made a determination that the relevant market was the national market for central station services, a submarket of the security business. D claims this should be limited to local areas and not national. The court held that no reasonable alternative existed for such services and that D had a monopoly. The court also found that D operated some offices at a loss to injure competition and hence violated §§ 1 and 2.

The legal issues presented in this case will be displayed here.

The court's holding and decision will be displayed here.

Legal analysis from Dean's Law Dictionary will be displayed here.