Fair Isaac Corp. v. Equifax Inc.

Opinion

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

I. INTRODUCTION

On November 20, 2007, the undersigned United States District Judge heard oral argument on the Motion for Partial Judgment on the Pleadings or, Alternatively, for Partial Summary Judgment in Respect of Antitrust Claims [Docket No. 215] brought  [*2] by Defendants Equifax Inc.; Equifax Information Services LLC (collectively "Equifax"); Experian Information Solutions Inc. ("Experian"); Trans Union, LLC ("Trans Union") (Equifax, Experian, and Trans Union collectively are the "Credit Bureaus"); and VantageScore Solutions, LLC ("VantageScore") (the Credit Bureaus and VantageScore collectively are "Defendants"). In their Second Amended Complaint [Docket No. 81], Plaintiffs Fair Isaac Corporation and its subsidiary myFICO Consumer Services, Inc. (collectively "Fair Isaac"), assert claims under sections one and two of the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. §§ 1 and 2, and section seven of the Clayton Act, 15 U.S.C. § 18. For the reasons set forth herein, Defendants' Motion is denied in its entirety.

II. BACKGROUND

The following facts relevant to Fair Isaac's antitrust claims are taken from Fair Isaac's Second Amended Complaint, except where noted otherwise. The factual allegations in the Second Amended Complaint are assumed to be true for the purpose of Defendants' Motion for Partial Judgment on the Pleadings. Westcott v. Omaha, 901 F.2d 1486, 1488 (8th Cir. 1990) (noting that motion for judgment on the pleadings is analyzed under same standard as  [*3] motion to dismiss); Hamm v. Groose, 15 F.3d 110, 112 (8th Cir. 1994) (stating that facts alleged in the complaint are taken as true for purpose of motion to dismiss).

A. The Market for Aggregated Credit Data

Full case includes Shepard's, Headnotes, Legal Analytics from Lex Machina, and more.