BAY GUARDIAN COMPANY v.NEW TIMES
MEDIA LLC
Filed 8/11/10
IN
THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FIRST
APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION
ONE
BAY GUARDIAN COMPANY,
Plaintiff
and Respondent,
v.
NEW TIMES MEDIA LLC et al.,
Defendants and Appellants.
A122448
(Super. Ct.
for the City & County of
San Francisco
No. CGC-04-435584)
STORY CONTINUE FROM
PART I….
Defendants' proposed interpretation of section 17043 is at
odds with both common sense and the objectives of the statute. Defendants would have us interpret the law to
prohibit below-cost pricing only if multiple competitors are the target of an
unlawful marketing scheme. As we have
observed, the â€
| Description | The Bay Guardian and the San Francisco Weekly are competing alternative newspapers in the San Francisco Bay Area. Each paper relies on advertising revenue in large part to sustain the publication of the news weekly. San Francisco Weekly offered advertising to business entities at a rate lower than was provided by the Bay Guardian. Consequently, the Bay Guardian sued San Francisco Weekly for unfair competition under California law. It was successful and won a jury verdict of approximately $16 million. This appeal has been taken by defendants New Times Media (the New Times), San Francisco Weekly (the SF Weekly), and East Bay Express (the Express), from a judgment that awarded plaintiff Bay Area Guardian (the Guardian) damages in an action for violations of Business and Professions Code section 17043 based on sales of advertising at rates below cost for the purpose of harming a competitor.[1] Defendants claim that the trial court erred by failing to admit defense evidence and properly instruct the jury on the essential element in a section 17043 action of proof of the defendant's ability to recoup losses. Defendants also argue that the court gave defective instructions on the intent or †|
| Rating |
