1. The court discusses the “essential facilities” doctrine. What do you suppose the plaintiffs were alleging the “essential facility” at issue here was? Why did their argument fail?
2. Do you agree that Pepsi and Coca Cola products are interchangeable? Do you agree with the court’s determination that Pepsi products are not their own relevant product market for purposes of the antitrust laws? Is there a way to reconcile consumer behavior with regard to this product with the rules of antitrust law?

Plaintiffs, retail grocery stores operating in the Tulsa, Oklahoma area, brought this diversity action under the Oklahoma Antitrust Reform Act against their local distributor of Pepsi and affiliated beverage products and its holding company (“Bottling Group” and “Holdings”). Plaintiffs alleged that Bottling Group unlawfully discontinued sales to Plaintiffs in response to a price discrimination lawsuit Plaintiffs had previously brought against Bottling Group’s predecessor-in-interest. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of Bottling Group and Holdings. On appeal, Plaintiffs primarily challenge the district court’s definition of the relevant product market. We . AFFIRM.