On February 5, 2016, the Federal Trade Commission opposed McWane Inc.’s petition to the U.S. Supreme Court to review the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals’ affirmation of a November 2015 FTC opinion that McWane unlawfully maintained monopoly power through a rebate program for U.S.-made iron pipe fittings, thus denying any competitive justification for the exclusive dealing arrangement.  In its opposition brief, the FTC argued that its finding that McWane possessed monopoly power was supported by both direct and indirect evidence, and that “further review is not warranted.”  The FTC refuted McWane’s argument on appeal that it lacked monopoly power as a matter of law because a rival had “successfully and substantially entered” the market, reasoning that the rival’s entry into the market was not successful from an antitrust perspective because it had no constraining effect on McWane’s monopoly prices.  Further, in arguing that an alleged monopolist may not be liable for exclusionary conduct that is justified by any normal business purpose, the FTC argued that McWane conflated two distinct theories of antitrust liability and failed to provide any persuasive pro-competitive business justifications.