On June 30, 2004, the U.S. Supreme Court without comment declined to review a lower-court decision that imposed substantial antitrust liability on a large company for engaging in “predatory pricing” (i.e., for selling its products at too low a price), even though the uncontested evidence demonstrated that the company at all times sold its products at prices that exceeded its costs. The decision was a setback for WLF, which filed a brief urging that review be granted. WLF argued that consumers benefit when companies lower their prices and that companies should not be punished for engaging in price competition that is good for consumers. WLF argued that the lower-court decision, unless reversed on appeal, would chill pro-consumer price cuts by companies that seek to avoid potential antitrust liability.