Extract to table

Even accepting every well-pleaded allegation in the Complaint as true and drawing all reasonable inferences in Ridgepoint's favor — as the Court must at this stage — the Complaint fails to state a plausible Section 2 refusal-to-deal claim

In sum, the starting point for the Court's analysis must be the strong presumption, articulated in Trinko, that a firm's unilateral refusal to deal with a competitor does not violate Section 2

First, the plaintiff must demonstrate a voluntary and profitable prior course of dealing between the parties with respect to the specific product, service, or facility at issue

Second, the monopolist must have terminated that prior voluntary course of dealing — not simply declined to initiate a new one

Third, the circumstances must support a plausible inference that the monopolist was willing to sacrifice short-term profits to achieve an anticompetitive end

3d at 1075 (emphasizing that all three elements must be present for Aspen Skiing liability)