8-29-2012
After reading through the 38 page document TRN filed in United States Federal Court in Tuesday, we reached out to an attorney who specializes in anti-trust cases. Here's the opinion he offered up "It appears that the simple way to look at the allegations made is that the plaintiffs some number of years ago were seduced by defendants into having defendants' affiliate stations carry their programs and sharing advertising revenues with a promise of truthfulness and faithfulness. But, defendants thereafter also seduced others in carrying programming that now competes with plaintiffs' programming. And as in any failed relationship, there are allegations of grievous lies and unspeakable acts."
The attorney we spoke with says, "there is a decent chance for a dismissal of the lawsuit."
"A feature of this lawsuit is the peppering of First Amendment claims within it. A curtailment or harming of First Amendment rights is not generally possible by a private entity. Rather, governmental actions are generally the subject of the First Amendment. In the lawsuit, the plaintiffs allege that the defendants "power to control the financial fate of over 100 Independent Spoken Word Syndicators, held in the hands of unelected Wall Street executives, is chilling to the First Amendment, because that concentration of power over the financial destinies of so many syndicated providers of non-music, non-sports spoken word radio programming ... forces these programmers into silence, through the fear of financial repercussions from the rep firm these Spoken Word Programming providers depend on for their very survival." Defendants' conduct may be allegedly harmful to plaintiffs, but it does not appear by any stretch to be "chilling to the First Amendment"."
"This complaint appears to be a disgruntled programming supplier lawsuit gussied up in grandiose claims of Sherman Act and Clayton Act violations. Simply put, the programming supplier plaintiffs entered into contractual relations with program syndicators and now believe that those contracts have been breached. These observations are not to minimize the alleged harm or damage that may have accrued to the plaintiffs. But, it will be interesting to see if the plaintiffs are able to proceed with the litigation of their Sherman Act and Clayton Act antitrust claims which are getting all the attention, or whether those claims quickly wither and die."
