in the united states district court for the - Hoosier Racing Tire

Case 2:07-cv-01294-TFM Document 263 Filed 09/15/2009 Page 18 of 34
the sanctioning company or the owner / promoter in exchange for the promulgation and
enforcement of a Hoosier-only tire rule for that race.
On December 15, 2006, Hoosier issued a press release in which it announced that it
had developed a “national sprint spec tire” and that the new tire would be “available in three
compounds.”
STA alleges that since the December 15, 2006, Hoosier announcement of its
“national spec tire” for right rear sprint car tires, and since Hoosier entered in to the agreements
for the sprint car tires, STA’s sales of right rear sprint car tires have dropped approximately
ninety-five percent (95%).
Discussion
STA alleges that Defendants have violated Sections 1 and 2 of the Sherman Act.
STA contends that the “single tire rules” and related exclusive contracts between Hoosier and
DMS for the supply of race tires at certain races sanctioned by DMS violate antitrust laws.
Defendants argue that they are entitled to summary judgment as a matter of law because STA
has suffered no antitrust injury as a result of the Hoosier-only tire rules. According to
Defendants, there have been no violations of any antitrust laws when Hoosier’s rivals simply
can not provide the sanctioning companies with a comparable economic incentive to switch tire
suppliers. Defendants also contend that the undisputed summary judgment record evidence
demonstrates that no sanctioning company is being coerced to have a single tire rule and that no
5
(...continued)
typically the most expensive tire. Third Amended Complaint, at 58.
18