ABSTRACT
Right of access to an essential facility controlled by a monopolist has long been a controversial subject under U. S. antitrust law. If the facility is truly essential, a denial of access means the monopolist will be immune, at least for some time, to most instances of competition. If U. S. scholarship were the last word on the subject, one would be led to conclude that the essential facilities doctrine should be described narrowly or fully abandoned. The essential facility doctrine has been articulated as a subset of the so-called "refusal to deal" cases which place limitations on a monopolist's ability to exclude actual or potential rivals from competing with it. Numerous U. S. courts have held that a refusal to deal, coupled with an anticompetitive intent, may support a finding of antitrust liability even absent proof that the withheld input constitutes an "essential facility".
