NEWS
Bar owners respond to lawsuit
Looking for a print version?
Simply choose ‘Print’ on your computer and a printer-friendly document will be generated.
Also by Darryl Schnell:
- Crowley to ALRC: drop drink specials (October 20, 2005)
- Mayor veto on Overture possible (October 20, 2005)
- Building commission rejects 9-story proposal (October 20, 2005)
- In-Depth: Changing the face of Badger fans (September 4, 2006)
- 'Sconnie Nation' a big hit at UW (September 7, 2006)
Related Stories:
- Students file bar special lawsuit (October 6, 2005)
- Judge dismisses drink special suit (April 8, 2005)
- Bar owners file for dismissal (February 22, 2005)
- Court to hear students' suit (March 26, 2007)
- Papers drop in lawsuit against local bar owners (March 25, 2004)
by Darryl Schnell
Tuesday, October 11, 2005
Twenty-five City of Madison bars have not yet responded to a federal antitrust lawsuit filed by two University of Wisconsin students, but they still have several weeks to formally reply.
Marsh Shapiro, owner of the Nitty Gritty and a Dane County Tavern League member, said the federal lawsuit differs from a previous state lawsuit, which is currently in the appeal process, by including more defendants, including UW Chancellor John Wiley. It extends the length of the antitrust violation back to 1990, rather than 2002 like the original. Shapiro said the lawsuit is taxing, both financially and emotionally.
"All they've tried to do by filing a federal lawsuit is try to muddy the water," Shapiro said. "This is just another classic example of the legal system running amok. They're bloodsuckers. [The plaintiffs' law firm's] only motive is money."
According to Shapiro, legal costs for tavern owners have amounted to $450,000 thus far. A defense presence in federal court would cost probably another $300,000, he added.
"A lot of the local bars involved in the suit do not have the staying power to afford those legal bills," Shapiro said. "The only people who are winning in this case are the lawyers."
The original lawsuit, filed in 2002, accused bars of price-fixing. Shapiro said taverns did agree not to offer drink specials on weekends, but they did it at the urging of the city and the university.
"[City officials] literally came to us and threatened us to the extent we would be subject to stricter regulations if we did not do something to counteract student binge-drinking," Shapiro said. "So, for the good of the community, and with our feet to the fire, several bar owners publicly agreed not to have drink specials on weekends."
The UW Policy Alternatives Community Education (PACE) project is still pushing for the elimination of drink specials, even in the face of the antitrust lawsuit, Shapiro added.
UW law professor Peter Carstensen, who specializes in antitrust law, said the fact the bar owners publicly announced the agreement was puzzling to him.
"One of the more interesting things in the complaint for the case is that the bar owners said in their '02 release they were concerned about an antitrust violation as a result of the agreement," Carstensen said. "That's as close to a smoking gun as I've ever seen."
Carstensen said it does not matter whether or not the taverns were acting for public good; they were still breaking the law.
"There is a very serious problem of the bar owners not understanding what they undertook when they made the agreement," Carstensen said. "A lawyer who knew basic antitrust law would have told them the agreement was likely in violation."
Carstensen, who has been blamed by several people, including Shapiro, for encouraging the students to file the lawsuit initially, said he has played no role in the suit except that of an interested observer.
"[Bar owners] are looking to blame anyone except for the person who didn't give them the legal advice they needed," Carstensen said. "If I were representing [them], I would have raised red flags when [they] ran the agreement by me."
