Filetech S.A.R.L. v. France Telecom

212 F. Supp. 2d 183 (2001)

From our private database of 45,900+ case briefs, written and edited by humans—never with AI.

Filetech S.A.R.L. v. France Telecom

United States District Court for the Southern District of New York
212 F. Supp. 2d 183 (2001)

  • Written by Heather Whittemore, JD

Facts

Filetech S.A. (plaintiff) was a French corporation that compiled information about consumers and sold marketing lists. France Telecom S.A. (defendant) was a corporation owned and operated by the French government. France Telecom provided telephone services to France and compiled information about its customers to develop marketing lists. France Telecom did some business in the United States, invoicing United States customers for a total of $15,000 since 1993. Under French law, individuals could opt out of allowing their personal data to be processed on computers. To comply with the law, France Telecom made a list of its customers who opted out of having their data processed. France Telecom, the only company with the list, refused to share the list with its competitors and offered to sell its marketing lists with the names on the list removed. Filetech sued France Telecom in federal court, alleging that France Telecom violated § 2 of the Sherman Act by monopolizing the marketing-list industry. France Telecom moved to dismiss, arguing that the doctrine of international comity prevented United States courts from hearing the case and that the courts lacked subject-matter jurisdiction over the case under the Foreign Trade Antitrust Improvements Act (FTAIA) and Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (FSIA). The district court dismissed Filetech’s complaint on international-comity grounds. The court of appeals reversed, holding that the district court should have first considered whether it had subject-matter jurisdiction. The court of appeals remanded the case for the district court to determine whether subject-matter jurisdiction existed.

Rule of Law

Issue

Holding and Reasoning (Haight, J.)

What to do next…

  1. Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.

    You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 742,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Berkeley, and Northwestern—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students.

    Unlock this case briefRead our student testimonials
  2. Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.

    Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students.

    Learn about our approachRead more about Quimbee

Here's why 742,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 45,900 briefs, keyed to 984 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
  • The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
  • Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
  • Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership
Here's why 742,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
  • Reliable - written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students
  • The right length and amount of information - includes the facts, issue, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents
  • Access in your class - works on your mobile and tablet
  • 45,900 briefs - keyed to 984 casebooks
  • Uniform format for every case brief
  • Written in plain English - not in legalese and not just repeating the court's language
  • Massive library of related video lessons - and practice questions
  • Top-notch customer support

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership