In the 2003 case Verizon Communications Inc. v. Law Offices of Curtis V Trinko, LLP, the United States Supreme Court ruled that a telecommunications company's failure to provide adequate service to its competitors did not constitute an antitrust violation under Section 2 of the Sherman Act. The plaintiff, Law Offices of Curtis V Trinko, accused Verizon Communications Inc., a telephone service provider with monopoly status in New York City markets at that time, of denying them equal access to their network infrastructure as mandated by the Telecommunications Act of 1996. However, Justice Antonin Scalia writing for majority held that while such behavior might violate obligations under telecom regulations it does not necessarily amount to anti-competitive conduct actionable under antitrust laws unless there is evidence showing monopolistic intent or predatory practices aimed at maintaining market dominance.

In the dissenting opinion for Verizon Communications Inc. v. Law Offices of Curtis V Trinko, LLP, Justice Stevens argued that the majority's decision was based on a misinterpretation of antitrust laws and their purpose to protect competition. He contended that Verizon's refusal to provide its rivals with access to its network could be viewed as an attempt to maintain monopoly power in violation of Section 2 of the Sherman Act. Furthermore, he disagreed with the majority’s view that regulatory oversight by another agency (the FCC) should limit antitrust enforcement; instead arguing they can coexist and complement each other in promoting competition and protecting consumers from monopolistic practices. Lastly, he expressed concern over how this ruling might deter future private enforcement actions under federal antitrust law due to increased difficulty in proving anti-competitive conduct.