Full opinion text
ORDER AND MEMORANDUM OF DECISION NOTTINGHAM, District Judge. In this case, a concert promoter and its affiliates seek damages and an injunction for alleged antitrust violations and tortious conduct by its competitor. Plaintiffs Nobody In Particular Presents, Inc. (“NIPP”), Ogden Resurrection Project, Inc., Swank Management, Inc., and N.I.P.P., L.L.C., claim that Defendants Clear Channel Communications, Inc. (“Clear Channel Communications”), SFX Entertainment, Inc. d/b/a/ Clear Channel Entertainment, Inc. (“SFX/Clear Channel Entertainment”), Clear Channel Broadcasting, Inc., Jacor Broadcasting of Colorado, Inc. (“Jacor”), Citicasters Co., Citicasters Licenses, Inc., and Tsunami Communications, Inc. (collectively “Clear Channel”) engage in anticompeti-tive conduct that violates (1) the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C.A. §§ 1-2 (West 1997), (2) the Colorado Antitrust Act, Colo.Rev.Stat. § 6^-105 (1999), (3) the Colorado Consumer Protection Act, Colo.Rev.Stat. § 6-1-101 (1999), and (4) Colorado common law prohibiting tor-tious interference with contracts and prospective business relations. This matter is before the court on (1) “Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment,” filed October 7, 2002, (2) “Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment,” filed November 1, 2002, (3) “Combined Motion and Memorandum for Summary Judgment of Parent Defendant Clear Channel Communications, Inc., On All Claims,” filed November 1, 2002, and (4) “Defendants’ Motion to Exclude Expert Testimony,” filed August 6, 2003. Jurisdiction is based on 28 U.S.C.A. §§ 1331, 1337 (West 1993), and 15 U.S.C.A. § 15 (West 1997). FACTS I. Factual Background A The Parties Plaintiff NIPP is a music concert promoter in the Denver, Colorado area. (First Am. Compl. & Jury Demand ¶ 3 [filed August 8, 2002] [hereinafter “Am. Compl.”]; admitted at Defs.’ Answer and Affirmative Defenses to Pis.’ First Am. Compl. ¶ 3 [filed August 21, 2002] [hereinafter “Answer”].) Founded in 1987, it has been a fixture in the Denver music industry since that time. (Id.) NIPP has promoted music concerts by jazz, folk, rock, and blues artists, including Beck, Pearl Jam, Sarah McLaehlan, and the Neville Brothers. (Id.) It has promoted music concerts at numerous music venues in Denver, including the Ogden Theater, the Bluebird Theater, the Denver Botanic Gardens Amphitheater, Red Rocks Amphitheater, the Gothic Theater, and the Pepsi Center. (Statement of Undisputed Material Facts ¶ 13 [filed November 1, 2002] [hereinafter “Statement of Undisputed Facts”]; admitted at Pis.’ Resp. to Defs.’ Statement of Undisputed Material Facts ¶ 13 [filed December 23, 2002] [hereinafter “Resp. to Statement of Undisputed Facts”].) NIPP controls concert-promotion access to the Ogden Theater, the Bluebird Theater, and the Denver Botanic Gardens Amphitheater. (Id. ¶ 13; admitted in pertinent part at Resp. to Statement of Undisputed Facts ¶ 13.) The parties dispute whether NIPP allows other concert promoters to use these venues. (Id. ¶ 13; disputed at Resp. to Statement of Undisputed Facts ¶ 13.) Clear Channel Communications, a Texas corporation and holding company, is one of the largest radio and entertainment conglomerates in the world. It owns significant holdings in radio, television, billboard advertising, concert venues, and the concert promotions industry, through its numerous wholly-owned subsidiaries. (Combined Mot. and Mem. for Summ. J. of Parent Def. Clear Channel Communications, Inc. on All Claims, Statement of Undisputed Material Facts ¶2 [filed December 23, 2002] [hereinafter “CCC Mot. for Summ. J.”]; admitted at Pis.’ Resp. to Undisputed Material Facts, Statement of Additional Disputed Facts, and Resp. to Mot. and Mem. for Summ. J. of Parent Def. Clear Channel Communications, Inc., Resp. to Undisputed Material Facts ¶ 2 [filed December 23, 2002] [hereinafter “Resp. to CCC Mot. for Summ. J.”].) Clear Channel Communications’ wholly-owned subsidiaries include defendants SFX/Clear Channel Entertainment and Jacor. Eight years ago, Clear Channel Communications was just one of numerous radio station owners, unknown to most people living outside of San Antonio, Texas, where the company is based. (CCC Mot. for Summ. J., Statement of Undisputed Material Facts ¶ 1; admitted at Resp. to CCC Mot. for Summ. J., Resp. to Undisputed Material Facts ¶ 1; Sarah Greene, Clear Channel v. Competition Act of 2002: Is There A Clear End In Sight?, 12 Depaul-LCA J. Art & Entm’t L. 387, 402 [2002].) At that time, Clear Channel Communications owned 43 radio stations and 16 television stations through its subsidiaries. (12 De-paul-LCA J. Art & Entm’t L. at 402.) After Congress enacted the Telecommunications Act of 1996, however, Clear Channel Communications began acquiring broadcast and entertainment companies at amazing speed. (Id.) Today, Clear Channel Communications consists of what was once seventy separate broadcast companies, owning 1200 radio stations, or 10% of the radio stations in the United States. (Defs.’ Br. at 14.) In May 1999, Clear Channel Communications entered the Denver radio market when it acquired Jacor. (Mem. in Supp. of Defs.’ Mot. for Summ. J. at 15 [filed November 1, 2002] [hereinafter “Defs.’ Br.”]; Pis.’ Resp. in Opp’n to Defs.’ Mot. for Summ. J. at 3 [filed December 23, 2002] [hereinafter “Pis.’ Resp.”].) As a result of this acquisition, Clear Channel Communications’ subsidiaries now own and operate eight radio stations in Denver, the maximum allowed by the Federal Communications Commission (“FCC”). (Statement of Undisputed Facts ¶ 11; admitted at Resp. to Statement of Undisputed Facts ¶ 11.) These stations include five FM stations, KBCO, KBPI, KFMD, KRFX, and KTCL, and three AM stations, KHOA, KOA, and KTLK. (Id. ¶ 11; admitted at Resp. to Statement of Undisputed Facts ¶ 11.) Additionally, as a result of the $4.4 billion dollar acquisition of SFX in 2000, SFX/Clear Channel Entertainment, Clear Channel Communications’ national concert promotions division, is the largest concert producer and entertainment promoter in the nation. (Statement of Undisputed Facts ¶ 11; admitted at Resp. to Statement of Undisputed Facts ¶ 11; 12 De-paul-LCA J. Art & Entm’t L. at 402.) Additionally, Clear Channel Communications has a radio concert promotions division, previously known as Clear Channel Concerts, and now as Clear Channel Radio Festivals. (Statement of Undisputed Facts ¶ 11; admitted at Resp. to Statement of Undisputed Facts ¶ 11.) Both of these divisions operate in Denver. (Id. ¶ 11; admitted at Resp. to Statement of Undisputed Facts ¶ 11.) Clear Channel Communications also owns or has control over more than 100 music concert venues nationwide. (12 Depaul-LCA J. Art & Entm’t L. 387, 402.) SFX/Clear Channel Entertainment and Clear Channel Concerts/Clear Channel Radio Festivals promote music concerts by jazz, folk, rock, and blues artists. It has promoted these music concerts at numerous music venues in Denver and has exclusive access to the Fillmore Auditorium in Denver. (Id ¶ 11; admitted at Resp. to Statement of Undisputed Facts ¶ 11.) The parties dispute the extent to which Clear Channel Communications participates in the operation of its subsidiaries, such as its radio stations and SFX/Clear Channel Entertainment. Clear Channel argues that Clear Channel Communications merely acts as a holding company, while NIPP asserts that Clear Channel Communications acts as an operating company, determining the strategy and culture for all subsidiaries. (CCC Mot. for Summ. J.; disputed at Resp. to CCC Mot. for Summ. J.) B. Concert Promotion in Denver Music concert promoters are in the business of planning and promoting music concerts for the ticket-purchasing public. Specifically, a concert promoter bids on a particular musician or band in order to obtain the right to promote the artist’s concert. In bidding on an artist, the concert promoter must often deal with the artist’s manager or record label, which, in the jargon of the industry, is the entity that produces and sells the artist’s recordings. (Pis.’ Resp., Exs. Vol. 2, Ex. 35 [Dep. of Sabrina Saunders at 44, 116-118], Ex. 30 [Dep. of Michael O’Connor at 425-427], Ex. 22 [Dep. of David Loncao at 37-40].) The concert promoter then arranges for the venue, ticketing, and advertising, among other things. Concert promoters advertise concerts using radio, television, the internet, newspapers, magazines, posters, and flyers. (Defs.’ Br., Exs. Vol. 1, Ex. A-7 [Am. Compl. ¶ 21]; Am. Compl. ¶ 21.) If the concert generates little interest and few ticket sales, the promoter absorbs the loss. Conversely, if the concert is hugely successful, the promoter keeps the profits. Some promoters promote concerts of all kinds of music, while others may promote, for example, only rock or jazz concerts. Similarly, many venues will accept concerts by artists of all kinds of music, while others will not. (Statement of Undisputed Facts ¶ 26; admitted at Resp. to Statement of Undisputed Facts ¶26.) Artist agents may represent both rock and non-rock artists, and record labels often produce recordings for both kinds of artists; however, some agents represent only rock artists, and record companies and talent agencies may have separate divisions that deal with only rock artists. (Statement of Undisputed Facts ¶ 27; admitted in pertinent part at Resp. to Statement of Undisputed Facts ¶ 27.) There are a large number of music concert promoters in the Denver, Colorado area, compared to other cities of its size. (Defs.’ Br., Exs. Vol. 2, Ex. A-19 [Dep. of David Kirby at 149-151].) In recent years, however, three music promoters have emerged as the main promoters in terms of revenue and the number of concerts promoted: Plaintiff NIPP, Defendants SFX/Clear Channel Entertainment and Clear Channel Concerts/Clear Channel Radio Festivals, and House of Blues. (Defs.’ Br., Exs. Vol. 1A, Ex. A-l [Decl. of Gustavo Bamberger ¶ 50, Table 11]; Pis.’ Resp., Exs. Vol. 1, Ex. 1 [Decl. of Owen Phillips, Table 5]; Statement of Undisputed Facts ¶¶ 14-16; admitted at Resp. to Statement of Undisputed Facts ¶¶ 14-16.) From the late 1960’s to the mid 1990’s, Barry Fey and his company, Fey Concerts, were the leading concert promoters in Denver. (Defs.’ Br., Exs. Vol. 1, Ex. A-13 [Dep. of Jesse Morreale at 57-58], Exs. Vol. 2, Ex. A-18 [Dep. of Douglas Kauff-man at 60], Ex. A-27 [Dep. of Christopher Swank at 248-250].) During that time, many individuals who have roles in the Denver concert promotion business today worked for Fey Concerts, including Jesse Morreale, Chuck Morris, Bill Bass, and Brent Fedrizzi. (Id., Exs. Vol. 1, Ex. A-13 [Morreale Dep. at 64, 71].) In 1987, Doug Kauffman founded NIPP, which competed with Fey Concerts in the Denver market. (Id., Exs. Vol. 2, Ex. A-18 [Kauffman Dep. at 53-54], Ex. A-27 [Swank Dep. at 249].) In August 1997, Fey sold his interest in Fey Concerts to Universal Concerts and retired, triggering a mass exodus of his employees and introducing more competition in the concert promotions industry. (Id., Exs. Vol. 1, Ex. A-13 [Morreale Dep. at 95-100].) Morreale started the concert promotions company, Gess Presents; Chuck Morris started the company Bill Graham presents/Chuck Morris presents and hired Fedrizzi as a talent buyer; and Bass founded Bill Bass Concerts. (Id., Exs. Vol. 1, Ex. A-13 [Morreale Dep. at 97], Exs. Vol. 2, A-16 [Dep. of Brent Fed-rizzi at 10-15].) In 1998, SFX, a national concert promotion company, acquired Bill Graham Presents and formed a partnership with Chuck Morris Presents. (Id., Exs. Vol. 2, Ex. A-16 [Fedrizzi Dep. at 11-12].) In 1998, NIPP and Kauffman were joined by Jesse Morreale and Christopher Swank, who owned the Bluebird Theater. (Id., Exs. Vol. 2, Ex. A-18 [Kauffman Dep. at 13-14].) In 1999, Clear Channel Communications acquired SFX and affiliated with Don Straussburg of the Fox Theater in Boulder. (Statement of Undisputed Facts ¶ 11; admitted at Resp. to Statement of Undisputed Facts ¶ 11, 16.) In 1999, House of Blues, another national concert promotion company, acquired Universal Concerts and, later, Bill Bass Concerts. (Defs.’ Br. at 17.) In 1999, according to NIPP, Clear Channel, NIPP, and House of Blues combined to hold 47% of the market share in revenue for all music concert promotion in Denver. (Pis.’ Resp., Exs. Vol. 1, Ex. 1 [Phillips Deck, Table 5].) In 2001, according to NIPP, they combined to hold 76%. (Id., Exs. Vol. 1, Ex. 1 [Phillips Deck, Table 5].) The parties dispute the exact market share held by each entity in all concert promotion in Denver. The following tables show the dispute of their market share for 1999 and 2001. Plaintiff NIPP asserts the following breakdown of market share for all music concerts: Year Promoter Revenue Concerts Concert Promo Market 1999 Clear Channel .27% NIPP $ 3,734,565 344 10.86% House of Blues 36.28% 2001 Clear Channel $25,000,000 43.81% NIPP $ 2,963,518 324 5.25% House of Blues $14,127,205 26.67% (Id., Exs. Vol. I, Ex. 1 [Phillips Deck, Table 5]; Resp. to Statement of Undisputed Facts ¶¶ 14-16.) Defendant Clear Channel claims the following breakdown existed in 2001 for all music concerts: Year Promoter Concert Promo Revenue Concerts Market 2001 Clear Channel $19,886,613 40% NIPP $ 3,888,000 369 4.1% House of Blues $11,810,621 25.6% (Defs.’ Br., Exs. Vol. 1A, Ex. A-l [Bam-berger Decl. ¶ 50, Table 11]; Statement of Undisputed Facts ¶¶ 14-16.) In the rock music concert market, NIPP claims that, in 1999, Clear Channel held a 0.45% market share, House of Blues held a 32.51% market share, and NIPP held a 16.89% market share. (Pis.’ Resp., Ex. 1 [Phillips Deck, Table 5].) In 2001, according to NIPP, Clear Channel held a 50.48% share, House of Blues held an 18.85% share, and NIPP held an 8.2% share. (Id, Ex. 1 [Phillips Decl., Table 5].) Other promoters in the Denver market include Soda Jerk Presents, Alex Croth-ers, Eric Pirritt, Dan Steinberg, and Jason Coulter. (Statement of Undisputed Facts ¶ 16; admitted at Resp. to Statement of Undisputed Facts ¶ 16.) In 2001, however, these promoters, in the aggregate, made up less than one percent of the market. (Defs.’ Br., Exs. Vol. 1A, Ex. 1 [Bamber-ger Decl., Table 11]; Resp. to Statement of Undisputed Facts ¶ 16.) Other promoters that made up more of the market in Denver in 2001, such as Concerts West and Jam Productions, promoted no concerts in Denver during 2002. (Pis.’ Resp., Exs. Vol. 1, Ex. 2 [Morreale Decl. ¶ 31].) C. Radio Denver 1. Play Lists In the radio industry, stations usually have a particular music format. Different types of formats in radio include: country music formats, contemporary hit formats, adult contemporary formats, rock music formats, urban music formats, talk radio formats, jazz radio formats, and world music formats, among others. (Arbitron.) Some rock music formats include Modern Rock, Active Rock, Alternative, and Classic Rock. (Arbitron.) There are, at least, fifty radio stations in the Denver area. (Statement of Undisputed Facts ¶ 54; admitted at Resp. to Statement of Undisputed Facts ¶ 54.) Of these fifty, Clear Channel owns eight. (Id. ¶ 54; admitted at Resp. to Statement of Undisputed Facts ¶ 54.) Of the five FM stations owned by Clear Channel, four, KBPI, KBCO, KRFX, and KTCL, have a rock format according to Arbitron. (Arbitron.) The parties dispute the number of other stations that have a rock format in the Denver radio market because they dispute what qualifies as a rock format. (Statement of Undisputed Facts ¶¶ 50-53; disputed at Resp. to Statement of Undisputed Facts ¶¶ 50-53.) Additionally, the parties dispute whether radio stations can easily switch formats.. (Id. ¶¶ 55-56; disputed at Resp. to Statement of Undisputed Facts ¶¶ 55-56.) Radio stations create a play-list of songs based on the station’s format, and the disc jockey must adhere to the play-list. How a station creates its play-list is disputed by the parties. Clear Channel argues that it makes its decisions about which songs to play based on the popularity of the song with its audience, according to polling data. (Defs.’ Br., Exs. Vol. 1, Ex. 24 [Dep. of Michael O’Connor at 383-385]; Pis.’ Resp., Exs. Vol. 2, Ex. 24 [Dep. of Mark Mays at 91-93].) NIPP argues that, although polling data plays some role, Clear Channel also makes its decisions based on which concerts Clear Channel is or is not promoting, and which “indies” have paid Clear Channel the most money. (Pis.’ Resp. at 18-24, 29-30, Exs. Vol. 2, Ex. 20 [Dep. of David Kirby at 129-132].) “Indies,” in the industry’s jargon, are independent record promoters that represent record labels. (Id., Exs. Vol. 2, Ex. 18 [Dep. of Theodore Guggenheim at 113-116], Exs. Vol. 3, Ex. 82 [Joint Statement of Current Issues in Radio].) The record labels pay the independent promoters, who, in turn, pay radio stations for “access.” (Id., Exs. Vol. 2, Ex. 36 [Dep. of Barbara Scull at 33-36], Ex. 22 [Dep. of David Loncao at 18-19].) “Access” allows the independent promoter to meet with the radio station and present marketing and polling data about the popularity of songs on the record label’s albums. (Id., Exs. Vol. 2, Ex. 24 [M. Mays Dep. at 92-93, 101].) Many commentators and NIPP view the independent record promotion market as a mechanism by which record labels pay for play of their songs, while simultaneously avoiding liability for “payola.” (Id. at 30; United States v. Goodman, 945 F.2d 125 [6th Cir.1991].) Payola, or paying radio stations for record spins, has been outlawed by federal law since the 1930’s. 47 U.S.C.A. § 508 (West 2001 & Supp.2003). Clear Channel receives millions of dollars from indies each year; however, it denies that indies’ payments influence Clear Channel’s decisions to add songs to its radio play lists. (Id., Exs. Vol. 2, Ex. 24 [M. Mays Dep. at 93].) For record labels that are in the business of selling records, radio air play of their records and live concerts by their artists are essential to generate demand for the records themselves. (Id, Exs. Vol. 2, Ex. 36 [Scull Dep. at 29], Ex. 39 [Dep. of Todd Sievers at 129-130].) Accordingly, record labels and their indies are highly dependent on, and in regular contact with, radio stations concerning air play for their records. Similarly, record labels are often in direct contact with concert promoters. (Id., Exs. Vol. 2, Ex. 30 [O’Connor Dep. at 425-426], Ex. 35 [Saunders Dep. at 44-46, 116-117].) 2. Advertising and Concert Promotions Although radio stations receive income from independent promoters at the behest of record labels, radio stations derive most of their income from advertisers who pay for advertising spots. (Id. at 21-23, 44.) Radio stations with the largest audiences can command the highest advertising rates from advertisers. (Defs.’ Br., Exs. Vol. 1A, Ex. A-3 [Aff. of Lee Larsen ¶¶ 3-4].) When a promoter seeks to advertise a concert on radio, therefore, it competes with advertisers of other goods and services. (Id., Exs. Vol. 3, Ex. A-61 [Dep. of Ashley McGhee at 10-12].) What makes concert promoters different from a regular advertiser, however, is the potential benefit the radio station receives from advertising a concert of a popular artist. By advertising the concert, the radio generates more interest in the artist, which encourages listeners to listen to the radio to hear about the artist’s concert and to hear the artist’s songs. (Id., Exs. Vol. 2, Ex. A-24 [O’Connor Dep. at 385-386].) Radio stations, therefore, often “promote” concerts for free, above and beyond the advertising time paid for by the concert promoter, by mentioning the concert on-air, holding ticket giveaways, and conducting interviews with artists. (Id., Exs. Vol. 2, Ex. A-26 [Dep. of Bob Richards at 253-255, 275, 311-312].) Such free promotion greatly benefits the concert promoter, as well as the station, by generating publicity and demand for the concert. (Id., Exs. Yol. 2, Ex. A-26 [Richards Dep. at 255-256, 311-312].) NIPP has purchased and continues to purchase advertising time on Clear Channel radio stations. (Id., Exs. Yol. 1A, Ex. A-3 [Larsen Aff. ¶ 8, Attach. A.].) Clear Channel radio stations have also provided NIPP with free promotional support for its concerts in the past, though Clear Channel admits that they provide less now. (Id., Exs. Vol. 1A, Ex. A-3 [Larsen Aff. ¶ 8, Attach. A.].) NIPP claims, however, that, since Clear Channel entered the concert promotion business, Clear Channel radio stations have withheld free promotional support from NIPP for its concerts. (Pis.’ Resp. at 25-27.) In 1999, NIPP only purchased radio advertising for approximately 8% of its concerts. (Statement of Undisputed Facts ¶ 38; admitted in pertinent part at Resp. to Statement of Undisputed Facts ¶ 38.) Although NIPP does not purchase radio advertising for all of its concerts, especially not for its low-budget productions, it almost always purchases radio advertising for its shows predicted to generate more than $10,000 in revenue. (Pis. Br., Exs. Vol. 1, Ex. 2 [Morreale Decl. ¶¶ 13-14]; Resp. to Statement of Undisputed Facts ¶ 38.) In 1999, NIPP claims that more than 70% of its revenue came from concerts that relied on radio advertising. (Resp. to Statement of Undisputed Facts ¶ 38.) In a market encompassing all Denver radio stations, Clear Channel’s share of radio advertising revenue was 46.8% in 2000. (Statement of Undisputed Facts ¶¶ 50; admitted in pertinent part at Resp. to Statement of Undisputed Facts ¶ 50.) In a market encompassing only roek-for-mat radio stations, depending of which party’s definition of rock-format is utilized, Clear Channel’s market share in terms of advertising revenue may be as high as 87.3%. (Statement of Undisputed Facts ¶¶ 50, 53; admitted in pertinent part at Resp. to Statement of Undisputed Facts ¶ 50, 53.) D. Anti-Competitive Conduct NIPP complains about several different kinds of conduct that, NIPP contends, violate federal and state antitrust laws and the common law. 1. Using Radio Air Play to Coerce Artists in Concert Promotions Decisions NIPP complains that Clear Channel uses its position in rock-format radio to intimidate and coerce rock artists and their record labels into signing with SFX/ Clear Channel Entertainment and Clear Channel Radio Festivals for promotion of the artists’ concerts. (Pis.’ Resp. 9-17.) Specifically, NIPP claims that rock artists and labels are afraid that Clear Channel radio stations will refuse to give artists’ songs as many spins as Clear Channel would if the artist signed with SFX/Clear Channel Entertainment or Clear Channel Concerts/Clear Channel Radio Festivals. (Id.) According to NIPP, the dependency of record labels on radio for spins and the resultant promotion of records enables Clear Channel to wrongfully exploit this relationship with labels to book concerts. (Id., Exs. Vol. 2, Ex. 30 [O’Connor Dep. at 425^26].) NIPP cites testimony and messages from former Clear Channel employees and record label owners to support their position. One of the central figures in Clear Channel’s radio operations in Denver is Michael O’Connor, the program director for KTCL and director of programming for all five Clear Channel FM stations in Denver. (Id., Exs. Vol. 2, Ex. 29 [O’Con-nor Dep. at 356-358].) Ted Guggenheim, a former talent buyer for Clear Channel Concerts/Clear Channel Radio Festivals, testified that record labels could have inferred from conversations with O’Connor that the label’s artist would not get spins unless Clear Channel was allowed to promote the artist’s concert. (Id., Exs. Vol. 2, Ex. 18 [Guggenheim Dep. at 102].) Additionally, Sabrina Saunders, the music director at KTCL, testified that, when record labels made O’Connor unhappy, O’Connor punished labels by withholding spins of their artists’ records. (Id., Exs. Vol. 2, Ex. 35 [Saunders Dep. at 122, 133-134].) Jason Martin, a representative of Roadrunner Records, testified that, in 2000, O’Connor threatened to pull Roadrunner’s records off of Clear Channel stations when NIPP gave KXPK, KBPI’s competition, the right to do promotional support for the “Tattoo the Earth Tour,” which featured several Roadrunner artists. (Id., Exs. Vol. 2, Ex. 23 [Dep. of Jason Martin at 112].) In order to dampen Clear Channel’s wrath, Dave Lancao, another representative of Roadrunner Records, upon O’Con-nor’s demand, sent an electronic message to the artist managers of Roadrunner’s artists suggesting they avoid using NIPP as their concert promoter in Denver to avoid losing air play. (Id., Exs. Vol. 2, Ex. 22 [Loncao Dep. at 82-83, 104, 146-147].) In 1999-2000, Clear Channel refused to have any dealings with Reprise Records, and O’Connor sent electronic mail messages to the label stating, “we are out of business with your label;” “I have left instructions for KTCL to have NO relations with Reprise ... I want nothing to do with Reprise Records;” and “you can all go f*ck yourselves as far as I’m concerned.” (Id., Exs. Vol. 3, Ex. 52 [Electronic Mail Message from O’Connor to Sievers of 3/28/2000], Ex. 53 [Electronic Mail Message from O’Connor to Sievers of 5/1/2000], Ex. 54 [Electronic Mail Message from O’Connor to Sievers of 5/1/2000].) In an effort to regain favor with Clear Channel, Reprise encouraged its band Orgy to allow SFX/Clear Channel Entertainment to promote the band’s Denver concert. (Id., Exs. Vol. 3, Ex. 55 [Letter from Siev-ers to Michael Papale of 6/27/2000], Ex. 55A [Letter from Sievers to Saunders of 8/22/2000], Ex. 43 [Electronic Mail Message from Sievers to Saunders of 8/25/2000], Ex. 43A [Electronic Mail Message from Sievers to O’Connor].) After the concert was booked, Reprise complained to O’Connor, “[We] can’t help but feel taken advantage of with only 126 spins to date on KTCL; why did we do this show? It cost us $80 per spin!” (Id., Exs. Vol. II., Ex. 44 [Electronic Mail Message from Sievers to O’Connor of 10/24/2000].) In September 2000, Margie Weatherly, a record label representative, sent an electronic mail message to O’Connor asking for reasons that songs by one of her artists, Vast, were being played less on KTCL. (Id., Exs. Vol. 3, Ex. 42 [Electronic Mail Message from Weatherly to O’Connor of 9/18/2000].) Instead of answering her question, O’Connor responded by asking Weatherly whether or not Vast was going to book its Denver Christmas show with SFX/Clear Channel Entertainment. (Id., Exs. Vol. 3, Ex. 42 [Electronic Mail Message from O’Connor to Weatherly of 9/18/2000].) He concluded his message by stating, “[if] you will investigate these issues, I would love to have a conversation with you about ‘where we stand.’ ” (Id., Exs. Vol. 3, Ex. 42 [Electronic Mail Message from O’Connor to Weatherly of 9/18/2000].) The next day, Weatherly sent a message to O’Connor assuring him that the concert booking with SFX/Clear Channel Entertainment was being finalized and adding, “NOW LET’S SEE SOME SPINS, BABY!!!!!!!!!” (Id., Exs. Vol. 3, Ex. 42 [Electronic Mail Message from Weath-erly to O’Connor of 9/19/2000].) In the weeks prior to Weatherly’s first message to O’Connor, Vast’s number of spins on KTML had dropped from twenty-three per week to six per week. After Weatherly confirmed the concert booking, KTCL increased the weekly spins for Vast to twenty. (Id., Exs. Vol. 1, Ex. 8 [Decl. of Victoria Lovato, Ex. C].) NIPP cites numerous other examples of such conduct. On September 27, 2001, the band “Puddle of Mudd” confirmed a concert booking with NIPP for a concert on November 12, 2001. (Id., Exs. Vol. 1, Ex. 2 [Morreale Decl. ¶¶ 37-38].) Data showing number of spins for Puddle of Mudd’s songs show that for the three months preceding September 27, 2001, KBPI played the band’s songs steadily more than twenty times per week. (Id., Exs. Vol. 1, Ex. 2 [Morreale Decl. ¶¶ 37-38], Ex. 8 [Lovato Deck, Ex. F].) The week ending September 23, 2002, KBPI played the band’s songs 25 times; however, the week ending September 30, the spins dropped to eleven, and the following week to zero. (Id., Exs. Vol. 1, Ex. 2 [Morreale Decl. ¶¶ 37-38], Ex. 8 [Lovato Deck, Ex. F].) Thereafter, KBPI resumed playing the band’s songs, but not at pre-September 27 levels. (Id., Exs. Vol. 1, Ex. 2 [Morreale Deck ¶¶ 37-38], Ex. 8 [Lovato Deck, Ex. F].) Clear Channel Communications has, to a certain extent, admitted this behavior in its own intra-company communications. In an electronic message to Clear Channel radio program directors in Denver, O’Con-nor urged them to encourage record labels’ involvement with the labels’ artists’ bookings: I encourage you to communicate our new policy concerning artist promotion to labels in advance so they understand why we might potentially be in a position to ignore their artist’s appearance in the Denver market. Quite simply, if a local promoter is unwilling or unable to properly compensate us for our ... valuable audience reach, then we will be forced to ignore the show. Label will be in a better position to intervene [with artists] on your behalf if outside promoters resist this new policy and attempt to put you at a disadvantage. (Id., Exs. Vol. 3, Ex. 41 [Electronic Mail Message from O’Connor to All Denver Clear Channel Radio Program Directors, Music Directors, and Promotions Directors of 6/19/2001].) In an electronic mail message to Tom Owens, the Vice President of Programming for Clear Channel Radio, O’Connor admitted: This is happening a lot in Denver ... using threat of airplay to take shows away from another promoter in the market. Very VERY Dangerous. I know for a fact that an SFX talent buyer did what I described below despite my soft peddling of the issue. Am collecting letters of denial every time this comes up so that the radio side is covered. It has come up at least five times in the last 3 months. (Id., Exs. Vol. 3, Ex. 64 [Electronic Mail Message from O’Connor to Tom Owens of 3/26/2001].) 2. Refusing Promotional Support on Radio to NIPP Concerts Additionally, NIPP argues that Clear Channel Communications denies free promotional support and advertising to concert promoters besides SFX/Clear Channel Entertainment and Clear Channel Coneerts/Clear Channel Radio Festivals. (Id.) According to NIPP, before Clear Channel entered the concert promotion business, it was customary for local concert promoters to have regular contact with radio program, music, and promotions directors, and the stations would usually give free promotional support, such as ticket giveaways and on-air mentions, for any concert in the same musical style as the radio station’s format. (Id., Exs. Vol. 2, Ex. 12 [Dep. of Michael DuCharme at 22-23], Ex. 21 [Dep. of Justin Levy at 89-90], Ex. 31 [Dep. of at 200-202].) Now, Clear Channel allegedly gives preferential treatment to its concert promotion business and limits or denies the historical levels of support previously provided to other promoters. {Id., Exs. Vol. 2, Ex. 12 [DuCharme Dep. at 28-30], Vol. 3, Ex. 41 [Electronic Mail Message from O’Connor to All Denver Clear Channel Radio Program Directors, Music Directors, and Promotions Directors of 6/19/2001].) Additionally, according to NIPP, no outside promoters are allowed contact with Clear Channel’s radio program, music, and promotions directors. {Id. at 26.) As evidence of this policy, NIPP cites the following electronic mail message that O’Connor sent to all radio program, promotions, and music directors at Denver Clear Channel rock radio stations on June 19, 2001: This notice will serve as an update to our policy concerning dealing with outside promoters. 1. No program, promotion, or music director is to have direct contact with either House of Blues, Nobody in Particular Presents, or any other non-clear-channel concert entity.. (sic) This includes telephone, fax, and, especially, email conversations.. (sic)... There is to be no direct contact with any outside promoter for any reason whatsoever without my approval. 2. You are free to continue to have direct conversations with labels and SFX concerning concert promotion in the Denver market. 3. Effective immediately, there will be no “added value” attached to spot buys placed by concert promoters. You can negotiate NTR promotions or trade ticket giveaways, ... but only after the promoter has placed a commercial buy on the station.... Airtime WILL NO LONGER be given for free under any circumstances without mine or Donnie’s approval. This policy does not apply to SFX/Clear Channel Entertainment/our (sic) our local Radio Concert Division. 4.I encourage you to communicate our new policy concerning artist promotion to labels in advance so they understand why we might potentially be in a position to ignore their artist’s appearance in the Denver market. {Id., Exs. Vol. 3, Ex. 41 [Electronic Mail Message from O’Connor to All Denver Clear Channel Radio Program Directors, Music Directors, and Promotions Directors of 6/19/2001].) Clear Channel raised the price at which NIPP can purchase commercial advertising, and O’Connor and Richards sometimes instruct their staff at KBPI and KTCL to give no promotional support to NIPP. {Id., Exs. Vol. 2, Ex. 12 [DuCharme Dep. at 23-30], Ex. 35 [Saunders Dep. at 57-58], Ex. 18 [Guggenheim Dep. at 120-121].) NIPP cites a concert by the bands Styx and Bad Company in 2001, which was promoted by House of Blues. {Id. at 24.) When House of Blues decided to use KKHK (the “Hawk”) to promote the show, Clear Channel wrote messages internally stating, “Let’s crush the Hawk and HOB on this show ... hope you will tow the line ... do not give free impressions to this Hawk festival on any of your stations ... avoid accepting advertising ... let’s get our f*cksticks out.” {Id., Exs. Vol. 3, Ex. 45 [Electronic Mail Message from O’Con-nor to Clear Channel Directors of 3/20/2001].) Additionally, O’Connor wrote, “[w]e are not going to accept any advertising or promotional schedule for the HOB Styxx show .... ” {Id., Exs. Vol. 3, Ex. 76 [Electronic Mail Message from O’Connor to Clear Channel Radio Directors of 3/20/2001].) 3. Hiring NIPP’s Media Director and Talent Buyer NIPP complains about the manner in which Clear Channel hired NIPP’s media director and talent buyer, Michael DuC-harme, in October 2000. (Id. at 27-28.) DuCharme worked at NIPP from August 1998 until October 2000. When Clear Channel hired DuCharme, he never returned to work at NIPP, but, instead, in the middle of the night, cleaned out his office, deleted files from his NIPP computer, and removed and destroyed various other files. (Id., Exs. Vol. 2, Ex. 12 [DuC-harme Dep. at 136-142], Ex. 28 [Morreale Dep. at 376-378], Ex. 31 [Ore Dep. at 156-157], Ex. 37 [Swank Dep. at 377-381], Ex. 38 [Dep. of Jerri Theil at 73-76].) Only after he had deleted and taken his files did DuCharme inform NIPP that he had been hired by Clear Channel Concerts/Clear Channel Radio Festivals. (Id., Exs. Vol. 2, Ex. 12 [DuCharme Dep. at 136-137].) Additionally, DuCharme took many of NIPP’s artist clients to Clear Channel. (Id., Exs. Vol. 2, Ex. 28 [Morreale Dep. at 224-229].) 4. Other Conduct Finally, NIPP briefly complains that Clear Channel engages in several other anti-competitive practices. First, NIPP claims that SFX/Clear Channel Entertainment sometimes bids significantly more to promote an artist’s concert than the artist requests, driving up the costs to competing bidders and causing higher ticket prices for the consumer. (Id., Exs. Vol. 1, Ex. 4 [Mickelson Decl. ¶¶ 5-6, 10].) Specifically, NIPP points to evidence that Clear Channel charges monopolistic prices for rock concert tickets. (Defs.’ Br., Ex. A-8 [Prelim. Economic Report of Phillips at 25-26].) According to NIPP’s expert and available Pollstar data, in 2000, NIPP charged an average $13.32 per rock concert ticket, Clear Channel Concerts/Clear Channel Radio Festivals an average $18.10, SFX/Clear Channel Entertainment an average of $33.69, and House of Blues an average of $31.69. (Id., Ex. A-8 [Prelim. Economic Report of Phillips, Ex. E].) From 2000 to 2001, the average increase in price of rock concert tickets in the Denver area was 3.7%. Consistent with this average, NIPP raised the price of its rock concert tickets by 3.8% to $13.83. (Id., Ex. A-8 [Prelim. Economic Report of Phillips at 25, Ex. E].) Similarly, in 2001, House of Blues raised its rock concert tickets by 2.2% to $32.40. (Id., Ex. A-8 [Prelim. Economic Report of Phillips at 25, Ex. E].) Rock concerts promoted by Clear Channel Concerts/Clear Channel Radio Festivals experienced a 46.5% increase in ticket prices to $26.51 per ticket, and rock concerts promoted by SFX/Clear Channel Entertainment increased by 23.5% to $41.59 per ticket. (Id., Ex. A-8 [Prelim. Economic Report of Phillips at 25, Ex. E].) NIPP argues that this pricing data is evidence of monopoly power. Second, NIPP claims that Clear Channel has made numerous derogatory comments about NIPP to artists, their management, and record labels; these comments include statements that (1) NIPP does not pay its bills to radio stations for advertising, and (2) NIPP has made other misrepresentations to record labels and their artists. Third, according to NIPP, Clear Channel’s practice of booking entire national tours of artists excludes other promoters from competing for their concerts in local markets. (Id., Exs. Vol. 1, Ex. 4 [Mickelson Decl. ¶¶ 10-11], Ex. 2 [Morreale Decl. ¶ 30].) Fourth, NIPP claims that Clear Channel’s refusal to allow other promoters to book concerts at the Fillmore Auditorium in Denver and its preferential access to the Pepsi Center, Denver’s sports arena, and the City Lights Pavilion, give Clear Channel an improper competitive advantage. (Id., Exs. Vol. 1, Ex. 4 [Mickelson Decl. ¶¶ 8].) II. Procedural History On August 6, 2001, NIPP filed a complaint in this court against Clear Channel Communications, SFX/Clear Channel Entertainment, Clear Channel Radio, Inc., Clear Channel Broadcasting, Inc., KBCO, KBPI, KRFX, and KTCL. (Compl. & Jury Demand [filed August 6, 2001] [hereinafter “Compl.”].) In its complaint, NIPP alleges that Clear Channel is liable for violation of sections 1 and 2 of the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C.A. §§ 1-2 (West & Supp.2003), for (1) monopolization, (2) attempted monopolization, (3) unlawful tying, and (4) withholding an essential facility. (Complin 59-89.) Additionally, NIPP argues that Clear Channel is liable for violation of the Colorado Antitrust Act, Colo. Rev.Stat. § 6-4-105, violation of the Colorado Consumer Protection Act, Colo.Rev. Stat. § 6-1-101, tortious interference with contractual relations, and tortious interference with prospective business relations. (Compl.lffl 90-121.) On October 5, 2001, defendants filed a motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction and other issues. (Mot. to Dismiss [filed October 5, 2001].) On July 19, 2002, the court denied defendants’ motion to dismiss. (Courtroom Minutes from July 19, 2002.) On August 8, 2002, NIPP filed its first amended complaint, wherein it added plaintiffs Ogden Resurrection Project, Swank Management, and NIPP, LLC, and defendants SFX, Jacor, Citicasters Co., Ci-ticasters Licensing Co., and Tsunami Communications. (Am.Compl.) NIPP also dismissed its claims against KBCO, KBPI, KRFX, KTCL, and Clear Channel Radio. (Id.) NIPP did not alter the claims for relief in its amended complaint. (Id.) On August 21, 2002, defendants filed their Answer and affirmative defenses with the court. (Answer [Filed August 21, 2002].) On October 7, 2002, defendants filed a motion for summary judgment without supporting materials. On November 1, 2002, defendants again filed a motion for summary judgment, but included supporting exhibits and memoranda. (Defs.’ Mot. for Summ. J. [filed November 11, 2002].) In their motion, defendants make numerous arguments in support of dismissing the case. First, Clear Channel argues that NIPP has failed to state a claim under federal or state antitrust laws because (1) it has not properly defined the relevant market under antitrust law; (2) NIPP cannot show monopoly power; and (3) NIPP has no evidence of instances of anti-competitive conduct on the part of Clear Channel Communications or its subsidiaries. (Defs.’ Br. at 32-64.) Clear Channel further argues that NIPP’s antitrust claims fail because (1) NIPP cannot prove a “tying arrangement,” since a tying product does not exist, and (2) NIPP has no claim under the “Essential Facilities Doctrine” as radio stations are not an essential facility. (Id. at 75-82.) Additionally, Clear Channel asserts that, since NIPP has not demonstrated specific instances of tortious conduct directed toward NIPP, it cannot prove its claims for violation of the Colorado Consumer Protection Act, tor-tious interference with contract, or intentional interference with prospective business relations. (Id. at 83-86.) On December 23, 2002, plaintiffs filed their response to defendants’ motion for summary judgment. (Pis.’ Resp.) Therein, NIPP argues that it has stated proper claims for relief under federal and state antitrust laws, the Colorado Consumer Protection Act, and the common law against tortious interference. Specifically, NIPP claims that (1) the markets of “rock concert promotions” and “rock radio stations” are definable, (2) Clear Channel has monopoly power in the rock radio market and has a dangerous probability of acquiring it in the rock concert promotions market, and (3) Clear Channel has engaged in anti-competitive conduct by threatening artists with loss of radio air play to gain leverage in the concert promotions industry. (Pis.’ Resp. at 9-32, 37-90.) Additionally, NIPP asserts that there is evidence of a tying arrangement, and radio stations are an essential facility for the promotion of rock concerts. (Id. at 91-100.) Finally, NIPP argues that it has produced admissible evidence to support its state claims for violation of the Colorado Consumer Protection Act, tor-tious interference with contract, and tor-tious interference with prospective business relations. (Id. at 101-106.) On November 1, 2002, Defendant Clear Channel Communications, the parent company of all other defendants, also filed its own motion for summary judgment. (CCC Mot. for Summ. J.) In its motion, Clear Channel Communications argues that, although it is the parent company to the alleged wrongdoers in this case, it cannot be held liable for the alleged misconduct of its separately incorporated radio or concert promotion subsidiaries, because it is merely a shareholder in these entities and does not operate the radio stations or engage in concert promotions. (CCC Mot. for Summ. J. at 1, 6-12.) On December 23, 2002, NIPP filed its response to Clear Channel Communications motion for summary judgment. (Resp. to CCC Mot. for Summ. J.) In its response, NIPP argues that Clear Channel Communications is liable for its subsidiaries’ wrongdoings both directly and as an alter ego of its subsidiary. (Id. at 6-22.) On August 6, 2003, defendants filed a motion to exclude the testimony of NIPP’s expert witness, Dr. Owen Phillips. (Defs.’ Mot. to Exclude Expert Test, [filed August 6, 2003] [hereinafter “Mot. to Exclude Expert”].) On November 3, 2003, NIPP filed a response to this motion. (Pis.’ Resp. in Opp’n to Defs.’ Mot. to Exclude Expert Test, [filed November 3, 2003] [hereinafter “Resp. to Mot. to Exclude Expert”].) On December 19, 2003, Clear Channel Communications filed a reply in support of its motion to exclude. (Reply Mem. in Supp. of Defs.’ Mot. to Exclude Expert Test, [filed December 19, 2003] [hereinafter “Reply in Supp. of Mot. to Dismiss”].) All motions having been fully briefed, the court may now appropriately rule upon them. ANALYSIS I. Legal Standard for Summary Judgment Pursuant to rule 56(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the court may grant summary judgment where “the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and the ... moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Fed. R.Civ.P. 56(c); see Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 250, 106 S.Ct. 2505, 2511, 91 L.Ed.2d 202 (1986); Concrete Works, Inc. v. City & County of Denver, 36 F.3d 1513, 1517 (10th Cir.1994). The moving party bears the initial burden of showing an absence of evidence to support the nonmoving party’s case. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 325, 106 S.Ct. 2548, 2554, 91 L.Ed.2d 265 (1986). “Once the moving party meets this burden, the burden shifts to the nonmoving party to demonstrate a genuine issue for trial on a material matter.” Concrete Works, Inc., 36 F.3d at 1518 (citing Celotex Corp., 477 U.S. at 325, 106 S.Ct. at 2554). The non-moving party may not rest solely on the allegations in the pleadings, but must instead designate “specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial.” Celotex Corp., 477 U.S. at 324, 106 S.Ct. at 2553; see Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(e). A genuine issue of fact does not exist, and summary judgment is appropriate, if the evidence is such that a reasonable jury could not return a verdict for the nonmov-ing party. Anderson, 477 U.S. at 248, 106 S.Ct. at 2510. If the nonmoving party’s evidence is merely colorable, or is not significantly probative, summary judgment may be granted. Id. at 249, 106 S.Ct. at 2511. In essence, the inquiry is whether the evidence presents a sufficient disagreement to require submission to a jury or whether it is so one-sided that one party must prevail as a matter of law. Id. at 252, 106 S.Ct. at 2512. The court may consider only admissible evidence when ruling on a summary judgment motion. See World of Sleep, Inc. v. La-Z-Boy Chair Co., 756 F.2d 1467, 1474 (10th Cir.1985). Additionally, the court, when ruling on a motion for summary judgment, must construe the facts in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party. Id. Federal courts applying state law ascertain and apply the proper state law with the goal of insuring that the result obtained is the one that would have been obtained in state court. Occusafe, Inc. v. EG&G Rocky Flats, Inc., 54 F.3d 618, 621 (10th Cir.1995) (citing Allen v. Minnstar, Inc., 8 F.3d 1470, 1476 [10th Cir.1993]). To determine which state’s substantive law to apply, a federal court applies the choice of law provisions of the state in which the court sits. Trierweiler v. Croxton and Trench Holding Corp., 90 F.3d 1523, 1532 (10th Cir.1996) (citing Klaxon Co. v. Stentor Elec. Mfg. Co., 313 U.S. 487, 496, 61 S.Ct. 1020, 1021-1022, 85 L.Ed. 1477 [1941]). Under Colorado ‘choice of law’ law, Colorado law applies to this case because Colorado has the most significant relationship to plaintiffs’ claims, considering that the allegedly tortious and anti-competitive behavior occurred in Colorado and all parties operated in Colorado at the time of the alleged tortious behavior. First Nat’l Bank in Fort Collins v. Rostek, 182 Colo. 437, 514 P.2d 314, 320 (1973); ITT Specialty Risk Servs. v. Avis Rent A Car Sys., Inc., 985 P.2d 43, 47 (Colo.Ct.App.1998). II. Parent Clear Channel Communications’ Motion for Summary Judgment In its motion for summary judgment, Parent Clear Channel Communications asks the court to dismiss it as a defendant. (CCC Mot. for Summ. J.) According to Clear Channel Communications, it cannot be held directly liable or liable as an alter ego to its subsidiaries, SFX/Clear Channel Entertainment and Jacor, for the allegedly wrongful conduct at issue in this case. (Id. at 6-12.) The court addresses each argument in turn. A. Direct Liability First, Clear Channel Communications argues that it cannot be held directly liable for antitrust violations under the Sherman Act because it is a holding company and not a seller, supplier, participant, or competitor in any of the product and geographic markets relevant to this case. (Id. at 6.) NIPP counters that Clear Channel Communications sufficiently participates in the behavior of SFX/ Clear Channel Entertainment and Jacor to be directly liable under the Sherman Act, because Clear Channel Communications directs and encourages the anticompetitive conduct. (Resp. to CCC Mot. for Summ. J. at 4.) According to NIPP, Clear Channel Communications acts as an operating company, as opposed to a holding company, and can, therefore, be held directly liable. (Id.) Absent allegations or evidence of “independent conduct” on the part of the parent, there is no basis upon which to hold a parent directly liable for the acts of a subsidiary. Invamed, Inc. v. Barr Labs., 22 F.Supp.2d 210, 219 (S.D.N.Y.1998); Drinkwine v. Federated Publ’ns, Inc., 780 F.2d 735, 741 (9th Cir.1985); Gemco Latinoamerica, Inc. v. Seiko Time Corp., 685 F.Supp. 400, 403 (S.D.N.Y.1988); Reynolds Metals Co. v. Columbia Gas Sys., Inc., 669 F.Supp. 744, 750 (ED.Va.1987). The question is what level of independent conduct is sufficient to hold a parent directly liable for anticompetitive effects occurring at the subsidiary level. Clear Channel Communications’ apparent response to this question is that a parent must be an actual seller, competitor, or participant in the market before it can be held liable under the antitrust laws. (CCC Mot. for Summ. J. at 6.) Clear Channel Communications, however, never endeavors to define the terms “seller, competitor, or participant.” It appears to take the position that a parent corporation must actually be a named party to a transaction in the market in order to qualify as a market participant. NIPP counterargues that the terms “seller” and “participant” have a broader meaning under antitrust laws, encompassing parents who direct their subsidiary’s behavior in a relevant market. NIPP bases its argument on the Supreme Court’s holding in Copperweld Corp. v. Independence Tube Corp., 467 U.S. 752, 773-774, 104 S.Ct. 2731, 2743, 81 L.Ed.2d 628 (1984). In Copperweld, the court held that a parent cannot be held liable for conspiring with its subsidiaries to engage in anti-competitive conduct under section 1 of the Sherman Act, because the parent and subsidiaries are, for antitrust purposes, a single enterprise acting with a unity of purpose. Id. According to NIPP, therefore, a parent can be directly liable for a subsidiary’s anticompetitive conduct when it directs and orchestrates such conduct, because parents and subsidiaries may be considered a single enterprise by the Sherman Act. Clear Channel Communications claims, however, that no court has ever found a parent hable for the acts of a subsidiary under the antitrust laws, absent alter ego liability. In support of its argument, Clear Channel Communications cites cases holding that, absent allegations or evidence of independent conduct on the part of the parent, there is no basis upon which to hold a parent directly liable for the acts of a subsidiary. Invamed, 22 F.Supp.2d at 219; Drinkwine, 780 F.2d at 741; Gemco Latinoamerica, 685 F.Supp. at 403; Reynolds Metals, 669 F.Supp. at 750. Specifically, when a plaintiff alleges, as the only basis for liability against a parent, that the parent owns the subsidiary that engaged in wrongful conduct, such allegation is insufficient to hold a parent directly liable for the wrongful conduct. Id. Clear Channel Communications’ argument, however, misses the mark because, in contrast to the cases which it cites, independent conduct on the part of the parent has been alleged in this case, and the question is whether this independent conduct is sufficient under antitrust laws to implicate direct liability. If a parent corporation, through its own employees and agents, is directing, controlling, and encouraging a wholly-owned subsidiary’s anticompetitive conduct, the subsidiary dare not defy its sole shareholder’s policies. To conclude that a parent can direct and require anticompetitive conduct of its subsidiaries, like any principal directing the conduct of an agent, and then escape antitrust liability by hiding behind its separate incorporation is counterintui-tive. Furthermore, the Supreme Court has suggested that direct liability may exist for parent corporations under the Sherman Act. Copperweld, 467 U.S. at 777, 104 S.Ct. at 2744-2745 (stating in dicta that “[a]ny anticompetitive activities of corporations and their wholly-owned subsidiaries meriting antitrust remedies may be policed adequately without resort to the intra-en-terprise conspiracy doctrine.... The enterprise is fully subject to § 2 of the Sherman Act .... ”). Additionally, lower courts have recognized that parent corporations can be held directly liable for independently participating in the antitrust violations of their subsidiaries. Reading Int’l, Inc. v. Oaktree Capital Mgmt., LLC, 2003 WL 22928728 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 10, 2003) (slip copy); Carl Hizel & Sons, Inc. v. Browning-Ferris Indus., Inc., 590 F.Supp. 1201, 1202 (D.Colo.1984). In Reading Int’l, an independent movie theater sued two large, national movie houses, Loews and Regal Entertainment, which each owned large multiplexes in competition with plaintiff. Additionally, the plaintiff sued shareholders of these movie house companies, including Oaktree Capital Management (“Oaktree”) that held 40% of the shares in Loews and 17% of Regal Entertainment. Reading Int’l, 2003 WL 22928728 at *4. Defendants argued that Oaktree could not be held accountable under the Sherman Act, absent alter ego liability, because Oaktree was not a competitor in the relevant market. Id. The court in Reading Int’l rejected this argument. In reaching its conclusion, the court analogized the definition of competitor under the Sherman Act to the definition of competitor under the Clayton Act. Specifically, the court stated: ‘A parent corporation is not a competitor of another corporation merely because its subsidiary is.’ On the other hand, to interpret [the Clayton Act] as meaning that the business activity of the subsidiary can never be considered in determining whether the parent is a competitor within the meaning of section 8 would assume that Congress intended to permit such a simple and obvious means of avoidance as to render the statute meaningless, and would ignore the Supreme Court’s admonition that the antitrust laws are ‘aimed at substance rather than form.’ This reasoning holds equal force in determining liability under section 2 [of the Sherman Act], as each of these sections of antitrust laws shares the primary concern of preventing the undue aggregation of market power. Id. at 17 (quoting U.S. v. Crocker Nat’l Corp., 656 F.2d 428 [9th Cir.1981] [reversed on other grounds]). The Reading Int’l court recognized that wrongful conduct may occur at the parent level resulting in anticompetitive effects reverberating at the subsidiary level. Id. The court, therefore, held that a parent may be directly liable for anticompetitive conduct at the subsidiary level when the parent sufficiently controls the subsidiary. Id. This court finds the above analysis persuasive and holds that a parent can be considered a competitor in a market where its subsidiary is a participant if, and only if, the parent sufficiently controls, dictates, or encourages the policies of the subsidiary. When the parent controls, directs, or encourages the subsidiary’s anticompet-itive conduct, the parent engages in sufficient independent conduct to be held directly liable as a single enterprise with the subsidiary under the Sherman Act. Id.; Copperweld, 467 U.S. at 777, 104 S.Ct. at 2744-2745. Clear Channel Communications argues that NIPP has failed to sufficiently allege or demonstrate independent conduct on the part of Clear Channel Communications. Here, however, the allegations in the complaint and the contents of the record create a dispute of material fact as to whether Clear Channel Communication engaged in sufficient independent conduct to be deemed a competitor in the rock concert and rock radio markets at issue in this case. In the amended complaint, NIPP specifically alleges as to Clear Channel Communications: This is an action for damages and in-junctive relief arising out of the unlawful and anticompetitive practices of a major radio broadcasting and concert promotion conglomerate, Clear Channel Communications, Inc. — by itself and through its various subsidiaries and affiliates — to prevent NIPP and others from competing to offer concert promotions services in the Denver, Colorado metropolitan area . Upon information and belief, Clear Channel intends to continue and extend its anticompetitive, predatory and exclusionary conduct. Clear Channel Communications states as follows, “We can now leverage our broadcasting assets to reach listeners who have an affinity for music to promote our live entertainment events and ultimately increase ticket revenue.... “Opportunities for synergies” among Clear Channel’s various business divisions “are explosive and are in the very early innings.” (Am.Compl.n 1, 50.) Additionally, NIPP makes allegations concerning “Clear Channel,” which collectively includes Clear Channel Communications: Clear Channel has repeatedly used its size and clout to coerce artists ... to use Clear Channel to promote their concerts or else risk losing airplay or other on-air promotional support on radio stations owned or otherwise controlled by Clear Channel.... Clear Channel is leveraging its market power over certain dedicated formats of local FM radio ... to unlawfully acquire, maintain and extend its market power over the local concert promotion business in the relevant market. (Am.Compl.1ffl 46-47.) These allegations clearly refer to Clear Channel Communications, as do others. Additionally, these main allegations focus on Clear Channel Communications’ coordinated use of its different subsidiaries to increase the power of its subsidiaries and, hence, itself, in various markets. This allegation of coordinated action emanating from the parent is sufficient to state a claim against Clear Channel Communications for direct liability. Furthermore, the record supports a finding that Clear Channel Communications directs and controls the policies and behavior of its subsidiaries. First, management of Clear Channel Communications sets the vision, strategy, and culture of all subsidiaries. (Resp. to CCC Mot. for Summ. J., Ex. 5 [ M. Mays Dep. at 39, 85].) Mark Mays, President and Chief Operating Officer of Clear Channel Communications, and Randall Mays, Chief Financial Officer of Clear Channel Communications, testified that Clear Channel Communications operates its subsidiaries as divisions of the company, with each division, such as entertainment and radio, reporting up to Mark Mays at Clear Channel Communications. (Id., Ex. 5 [M. Mays Dep. at 43-44], Ex. 6 [R. Mays Dep. at 26].) According to Randall Mays, written reports from Jacor on its radio operations in Denver are regularly required to be submitted to its parent company and ultimately Clear Channel Communications. (Id., Ex. 6 [R. Mays Dep. at 38-39].) Furthermore, Clear Channel Communications participates in the budgeting process for all subsidiaries and reviews subsidiaries’ plans for achieving revenue. (Id., Ex. 5 [M. Mays Dep. at 64].) Clear Channel Communications controls subsidiaries’ budgets by writing most of the cheeks that the subsidiaries require so the divisions cannot spend money on capital acquisitions without consulting with Clear Channel Communications for funding. (Id., Ex. 5 [M. Mays Dep. at 84-85].) Clear Channel Communications handles the payroll for all of its subsidiaries’ Denver radio employees. (Id., Ex. 6 [R. Mays Dep. at 40].) Finally, according to Clear Channel’s 10-K filings, Clear Channel Communications “routinely reviews staffing levels and operating costs ... [and] advises local managers on broad policy matters and is responsible for long-range planning, allocating resources, and financial reporting, and controls.” (Id., Ex. 4 [10-K Filing at 100].) Mark Mays further testified that Clear Channel Communications coordinates meetings between managers from the different subsidiaries “to try and encourage