Tampa Electric instructed courts to assess exclusive dealing by defining the relevant market (product and geographic) and determining whether the foreclosure occasioned by the challenged agreement is substantial. It added: “To determine substantiality in a given case, it is necessary to weigh the probable effect of the contract on the relevant area of effective competition, taking into account the relative strength of the parties, the proportionate volume of commerce involved in relation to the total volume of commerce in the relevant market area, and the probable immediate and future effects which preemption of that share of the market might have on effective competition therein.” The Court may not have used the magic words “rule of reason,” but that’s a rule of reason assessment.
Simply put, my opponents won't (& may be can't) read the legislative history, statutory text, or jurisprudence. ICLE says (while also calling my org’s argument “bizarre”) that “Tampa Electric explicitly prescribed a rule of reason analysis.” No it didn’t. It's that simple folks.