The Supreme Court's decision in Pacific Bell Telephone Co. v. linkLine Communications, Inc. removed an important tool from competition regulators’ arsenals. Not only did the Court express skepticism about the existence of a price squeeze cause of action, but it also applied the economically mismatched predatory pricing test to price squeeze cases. Unfortunately, the lack of clarity on linkLine's reach also caused significant confusion in the lower courts. Examining these issues, this article clarifies the distinction between price squeeze and predatory pricing claims, and argues that the second step of the predatory pricing test, probability of recoupment, is inappropriate for price squeeze cases and should either be dropped from the test or replaced with a presumption of recoupment.

中文翻译：

---

挤压链接专线：重新考虑价格挤压案例中的补偿

最高法院在Pacific Bell Telephone Co.诉linkLine Communications，Inc.案中的裁决从竞争监管机构的武库中删除了一个重要工具。法院不仅对价格挤压诉因的存在表示怀疑，而且还将经济上不匹配的掠夺性定价测试应用于价格挤压案件。不幸的是， linkLine的覆盖范围不够清晰，也引起了下级法院的极大困惑。通过研究这些问题，本文阐明了价格紧缩和掠夺性定价要求之间的区别，并认为掠夺性定价测试的第二步，即补偿的可能性，不适用于价格紧缩的情况，应从测试中删除或替换为补偿的推定。