The opinion of the court was delivered by: Matthew F. Kennelly, District Judge
THIS ORDER APPLIES TO: ALL ACTIONS
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Plaintiffs have filed this suit on behalf of all those who purchased text messaging services on a fee-per-message basis from defendants or their predecessors, subsidiaries, or affiliates from January 1, 2005 to the present. Plaintiffs allege that defendants, the four national wireless communications service providers, entered into and implemented a "continuing contract, combination, and conspiracy to fix, raise, maintain, and stabilize prices for Text Messaging Services sold in the United States" in violation of section 1 of the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1. Compl. ¶ 1. Defendants have moved to dismiss plaintiffs' consolidated complaint under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), arguing that plaintiffs have not alleged facts sufficient to state a claim that defendants entered into an unlawful conspiracy. For the reasons stated below, the Court grants defendants' motion.
The Court takes the following facts from the allegations in plaintiffs' amended consolidated complaint.
The defendants in this case are Sprint/Nextel, Verizon, AT&T, and T-Mobile. They are the four national providers of wireless services in the United States. Collectively, they control more than ninety percent of the U.S. market for text messaging services.
Text messaging involves the use of cellular telephones to send and receive short messages, generally limited to 160 characters. Defendants transmit text messages on existing cellular network connections. Because the size of the messages is small, it costs defendants very little -- a fraction of one cent -- to transmit an individual text message. In 2008, defendants transmitted 2.5 trillion text messages for almost 263 million wireless subscribers in the United States. An estimated 3.3 trillion text messages will be sent in 2009.
Consumers have two choices when purchasing text messages. They may pay on a per-message basis, or they may purchase a bundled plan, which, depending on the plan, includes either a set allotment or an unlimited number of text messages. Most cellular subscribers purchase text messaging plans. It is estimated, however, that between two and ten percent of text messages sent and received in the U.S. are purchased on a per-message basis, either because the customer has not purchased a bundled plan or because she has exceeded her plan's allotments. The total revenue from text messages purchased on a per-message basis in the U.S. in 2008 is estimated to be $10 billion.
Text messaging was first introduced in the U.S. by AT&T in 2002. In the years after text messaging's introduction and prior to the start of the alleged conspiracy, defendants charged disparate prices for individual text messages purchased on a per- message basis, often resulting in lower costs to consumers.
Beginning in 2005, however, defendants began charging the same prices for text messages purchased on a per-message basis:
* as of the second quarter of 2006, prior to the start of the alleged conspiracy, all four defendants charged ten cents for individual text messages purchased on a per-message basis;
* In the fourth quarter of 2006, Sprint-Nextel raised its price for individual text messages to fifteen cents. In the first and second quarters of 2007, AT&T, Verizon, and T-Mobile also raised their per-message text messaging rates from ten cents to fifteen cents.
* In late 2007, Sprint-Nextel raised its per-message rates again, from fifteen to twenty cents. AT&T and Verizon followed suit in the first quarter of 2008, and T-Mobile matched that price in the third quarter of 2008.
During this same period, defendants' prices for other wireless services, such as voice calling and data transmission, decreased.
Plaintiffs allege that the per-message price for text messages reflects a substantial mark-up over the per-unit cost of transmitting text messages. They also allege that as per-message prices for text messaging were increasing, defendants' cost of transmitting text messages decreased. During this same time period, defendants' capacity to send and receive text messages increased, and defendants have the infrastructure to transmit many more text messages than they currently send.
Plaintiffs allege that, absent collusion, per-unit prices for text messages should have decreased as defendants' costs decreased. Instead, all four companies increased their prices in the same way -- from ten to fifteen cents, then from fifteen to twenty cents -- around the same time. Plaintiffs assert that this is highly unusual conduct and a departure from what occurred as a result of what they allege was active competition for per-unit text messaging customers prior to 2005. According to plaintiffs, defendants' lockstep price increases could only have resulted from a price-fixing conspiracy. Plaintiffs allege alternatively that Sprint-Nextel's two five-cent price increases constituted "offers" to the other three defendants to engage in price-fixing, which plaintiffs allege the other defendants "accepted" when they raised their prices by the same amounts.
Plaintiffs also allege that defendants are all members of CTIA-The Wireless Association (CTIA), a trade organization based in Washington, D.C., and The Groupe Speciale Mobile Association (GMSA), an international trade group of cellular providers. Plaintiffs allege that in early 2002, shortly after text messaging was introduced in the U.S., the defendants, via the CTIA, negotiated an agreement that allows each carrier's text messaging service to communicate with the other defendants' services. Because of this agreement, consumers can send text messages to any cellular phone user, regardless of the recipient's wireless service provider. Defendants have met regularly via CTIA's biannual conventions since 2002. Plaintiffs allege that these conventions and other trade association meetings have provided defendants with the opportunity to conspire to fix prices for text messages purchased on a per-message basis.
CTIA also collects data on the wireless industry, and it has a "Wireless Internet Caucus," whose leadership council meets quarterly and includes members from all four defendant companies. Sprint-Nextel announced its two five-cent increases in the price of individual text messages within one month after the mid-year meetings of the leadership council. Plaintiffs cite this as further evidence of a conspiracy.
CTIA also established and controls the Common Short Code Association (CSCA), an organization that promotes the sale of Common Short Codes (CSCs). CSCs are five- or six-digit numeric codes to which text messages can be addressed from a wireless device. Wireless phone users can use CSCs to (among other things) cast votes in reality show contests, receive information about products and services from vendors or advertisers, and receive mobile updates about their favorite sports teams. Plaintiffs allege that defendants stand to gain substantial revenue from the increased use of CSCs, from both the higher volume of text messages sent and received and the fees defendants collect from businesses and advertisers that wish to use CSCs to reach their customers. Plaintiffs allege that defendants have collusively used the CSCA to expand the use of text messaging services by encouraging the development of CSC applications that are highly appealing to consumers and then have collusively capitalized on this expanded market by controlling the pricing of text messaging services.
Finally, plaintiffs allege that the market for text messaging services is conducive to collusion. The wireless services market is heavily concentrated; there are high barriers to entry; and text messaging services are homogeneous, with no discernable differences among the form or appearance of the text messaging services offered by the defendants. Plaintiffs allege that these structural factors facilitate collusion among defendants and prevent new competitors from entering the market to undercut artificially high prices on individual text messages.
Plaintiffs contend that these facts, taken together, support a reasonable inference that defendants conspired to raise and fix prices on single text messages purchased on a per-message basis in violation of section 1 of the Sherman Act. Plaintiffs allege that they and other class members have been injured by defendants' conduct because they are unable to purchase text messages on a per-message ...