Full opinion text
OPINION DUNCAN, District Judge. “Blind bidding” is a term used in the motion picture industry to describe the licensing of a motion picture to a theater owner without the owner’s first viewing the picture. Blind bidding and other practices by which motion picture producers and distributors license their product to exhibitors have been controversial and subject to varying degrees of governmental scrutiny at least since the 1940’s, when the Supreme Court was asked to review a far-reaching judicial decree regulating them. United States v. Paramount, 334 U.S. 131, 157, 68 S.Ct. 915, 929, 92 L.Ed. 1260 (1948). That decree permitted a theater owner to reject 20% of the films licensed by blind bidding. Although at that time relatively few new films were blind bid, the practice increased steadily during the ensuing decades. In 1968 a new consent decree imposed a more stringent restriction, limiting to three the number of films which could be blind bid per year. When that consent decree expired in 1975, the number of films blind bid each year increased rapidly. These events paralleled an increasing concentration of production and distribution in a few major companies while theater ownership remained relatively less concentrated. Exhibitors, finding themselves with diminishing clout in bargaining for licenses, complained that the producers and distributors of motion pictures were unfairly using their increasing market power to exact onerous bargaining terms. It was amidst these developments that the Ohio General Assembly enacted a bill intended to answer the complaints of exhibitors by prohibiting blind bidding, restricting the use of certain other licensing practices, and setting up a procedure for the open, orderly licensing of motion pictures in Ohio. The major producers and distributors of motion pictures joined together to bring this action against the Governor of Ohio challenging the Ohio enactment as unconstitutional. Citing the increasingly high costs of production and distribution of motion pictures together with the small cadre of extremely popular motion picture professionals, plaintiffs contend their practices are entirely reasonable and necessary to the presentation of excellent and financially successful motion pictures. They claim the Act violates the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, the First Amendment, the Commerce Clause, and, as implicated by federal preemption in the areas of copyright and antitrust, the Supremacy Clause of the United States Constitution. The Court holds that the Ohio Act survives constitutional attack. Before trial, the Court denied defendant’s motion to dismiss the case for lack of jurisdiction and to abstain from exercising its jurisdiction but noted that these issues would be re-examined against the clearer factual setting afforded by trial. Below are the facts as found after trial, the Court’s re-examination of the questions concerning jurisdiction and abstention, and the Court’s conclusions of law on each of the constitutional challenges. I. Findings of Fact A. The Parties The plaintiffs in this action create, produce, and/or distribute motion pictures and own copyrights or copyright licenses giving them the right to license their films for exhibition within the State of Ohio and throughout the United States. Plaintiffs Avco Embassy Pictures Corp. and Twentieth-Century Fox are corporations organized and existing under the laws of the State of Delaware with their principal places of business in the State of California. Plaintiff Buena Vista Distribution Co., Inc., the exclusive distributor for Walt Disney Productions, is a corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of California with its principal place of business in the State of California. Plaintiffs Columbia Pictures, Inc., United Artists Corporation and Paramount Pictures Corporation are corporations organized and existing under the laws of the State of Delaware with their principal places of business in the State of New York. Plaintiff Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer, Inc. is a corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of Delaware with its principal place of business in the State of California. Plaintiff Universal Pictures division of Universal City Studios, Inc. and Universal Film Exchanges, Inc. are corporations organized and existing under the laws of the State of Delaware with their principal places of business in the States of California and New York, respectively. Plaintiff Warner Brothers, Inc. and Warner Brothers Distributing Corporation are corporations organized and existing under the laws of the States of Delaware and New York, respectively, with their principal places of business in the State of California. The defendant is James A. Rhodes, Governor of the State of Ohio. B. The Case On June 22, 1978, the Ohio General Assembly enacted Amended Substitute House Bill 806 and on July 23, 1978, defendant Governor James A. Rhodes signed the bill into law. A.S.H.B. 806 added §§ 1333.05, 1333.06 and 1333.07 (hereafter referred to as “the Act”) to the Revised Code of Ohio, to become effective on October 23, 1978. The Act is intended to regulate the manner in which motion pictures are distributed for exhibition by motion picture theaters in the State of Ohio. Plaintiffs ask the Court to declare the Act unconstitutional and to enjoin its enforcement. C. The Motion Picture Industry The plaintiffs’ several challenges to the Act’s constitutionality require the Court to make findings of fact concerning the Act’s impact on the motion picture industry. In order to understand the law’s impact, it is first necessary to understand the nature of the industry. The Court’s findings in this regard are set forth below. The motion picture industry is a relatively young industry with its origin in the 1920’s. Since that time it has developed a fairly unique structure. The production and distribution arm of the film industry has become increasingly concentrated in a small number of major companies. Plaintiff MGM withdrew from the distribution of motion pictures in the early or mid-1970’s. The remaining plaintiffs produce and distribute a substantial majority of all films in the domestic market. In 1978 the plaintiffs garnered 94.4% of industry revenues. The remainder of films in the industry are produced and/or distributed by foreign companies or by small companies known in the trade as “independents.” Prior to 1948, the major distributors also owned many of the nation’s leading theaters. After United States v. Paramount Pictures, Inc., 334 U.S. 131, 68 S.Ct. 915, 92 L.Ed. 1260 (1948), distributors were required to divest themselves of their theaters, United States v. Paramount Pictures, Inc., 85 F.Supp. 881 (S.D.N.Y.1949), and hence the exhibition arm of the industry has remained in other hands. Currently, none of the plaintiffs owns or operates theaters for the commercial exhibition of motion pictures in Ohio. The exhibition arm is considerably less concentrated. Theatérs are owned individually or in regional or national chains. Plaintiffs’ pictures are not sold. Rather, producer-distributors enter into licensing arrangements with theater owners in order to have their works exhibited to the public. Stemming from the bifurcation of the industry affected by the Paramount consent decrees is an unusually mutually-dependent relationship between producer-distributors and exhibitors. The plaintiffs create a product that depends on the exhibitors for its outlet: theater owners — the exhibitors of motion pictures — control the only available access that plaintiffs have to theater audiences. Conversely, producer-distributors control the quantity and quality of the product available to exhibitors, who consequently depend heavily on the plaintiffs for production of films to show in their theaters. As with many symbiotic relationships, the parties to it find their interests at once coincide and conflict. Without the cooperation of the exhibitors, producer-distributors would be without the major market for their goods. Without the cooperation of the producer-distributors, exhibitors would be haunted by the spectre of the “dark screen.” Thus, they depend upon one another for the benefit of all in turning a profit. At the same time, the two arms of the industry are at odds when it comes time to divide up the returns from the exhibition of a motion picture. That is done by bargaining for terms of a licensing agreement. Competition within the industry is complicated by this relationship. As would be expected, producer-distributors compete among themselves for the best theaters and exhibitors compete among themselves for the best films. In addition to that, those in the industry speak of a further wrinkle of “competition” between a producer-distributor and its licensee, the theater owner, for the best licensing terms. The motion picture industry is a high risk, high profit business. The cost of producing a motion picture today is high and becoming more so as the producers strive for increasingly spectacular films, which they deem necessary to compete with television. Production costs of $1 million are considered low budget; at least two of the 1978 Christmas season releases cost over $25 million each. The average cost of all 1978 releases was approximately $5.6 million each. Production costs represent what is called in the industry the “negative cost.” Negative costs have increased rapidly (300%) in the last several years. Plaintiffs’ films are distributed nationally, in varying patterns, through an elaborate network. Distribution costs often equal or exceed those of production. A typical motion picture must recoup at least twice its production costs before it begins to show a profit for the distributor. The nature of the product makes it difficult to predict the profitability of a motion picture. The producer-distributors attempt to share this risk by obtaining favorable licensing terms from exhibitors. D. The Licensing Procedure Before passage of the Act, licensing occurred through either competitive bidding or negotiation. In addition to the division of box office receipts, terms of a license agreement quite often included a “guarantee” — a sum representing a minimum film rental payment that the exhibitor guarantees he will pay the distributor regardless of the financial success of the movie; an “advance” — the amount of film rental the exhibitor will pay the distributor in advance of the release; the geographical market area to be exclusive to that exhibitor; and the length of the “run” — the number of weeks the exhibitor will show the picture. The practice evolved whereby a producer-distributor would notify all the exhibitors in a given area of a forthcoming film, accompanied by certain information about the film, and request bids on suggested terms. Theater owners then submitted their bids, listing the amount of guarantee, if any, the amount of an advance, if any, and a division of box office receipts they offered, along with other terms. The submitted bids were accepted or rejected by the distributors. Plaintiffs reserved the right to reject all bids if none was considered adequate. When this happened, the bidding process either began anew, or the distributor entered into negotiation with individual theaters to arrive at mutually agreeable terms. Ultimately a license agreement was entered into between the distributor and each theater chosen to exhibit the particular film. The production of a motion picture is a time-consuming process, taking anywhere from several months to several years to complete. The plaintiffs’ top executives normally decide whether to make a movie, then the project is turned over to the production branch for hiring of actors, directors, and technical personnel and the preparation of a production schedule. The plaintiffs generally have complete control over the schedule of production and the timing of the film’s release. They generally set the release date or dates sometime after principal photography begins. Plaintiffs usually prefer to release a film shortly after completion of production. There are several reasons for this desire. The first concerns film financing. There are a variety of sources for financing motion pictures: private investors, banks, and internally generated company funds. Funds borrowed to finance motion picture production carry an actual interest rate generally equal to or exceeding the prime rate; funds obtained from internally generated sources carry imputed interest costs. Interest accumulates every day the film is held without exhibition and continues to accumulate until a film recoups its negative and distribution costs. Other reasons for immediate release are less tangible. Plaintiffs fear they will create an impression in the film community that they are holding a film back because there is something wrong with it. Plaintiffs also prefer prompt release of films with currently relevant subject matter. If plaintiffs make licensing arrangements during production, they can arrange to have playdates booked with individual theaters as soon as a film is completed. Therefore the industry evolved the practice of licensing pictures while they are still in production. This practice required that an exhibitor’s decision about whether to license a film hinge on whatever information the producer-distributor made available to him about the forthcoming film. Under prior practice, when a final print was available at the time of licensing, the picture ordinarily was “trade screened” for interested exhibitors prior to the bidding or negotiating process. Indeed, the plaintiffs generally prefer to do so. However, when a final print was not available at the time the licensing process began, exhibitors made offers on the basis of the information available at that time such as the names of principal actors, directors and other key people involved with the picture and a synopsis of the plot. Plaintiffs occasionally furnished attractive advertising brochures describing forthcoming films. When pictures were derived from published novels, plays and other movies, these materials were likewise available to exhibitors. There exists a great deal of controversy over the adequacy of such information in assessing a film. Exhibitor witnesses testified, and I find, that the information given them for bidding purposes was inadequate and sometimes misleading and that they can more readily assess the potential of a movie for their theaters by themselves viewing it in full. E. Blind Bidding A film that is not trade screened prior to licensing is “blind bid.” Contrary to plaintiffs’ characterization of blind bidding as a “long established” trade practice, the testimony at trial demonstrated that this practice, though known in the 1930’s and noted by the Paramount trial court in 1946, 66 F.Supp. 323, 350 (S.D.N.Y.1946), was infrequently used before the 1960’s. Yet for a number of reasons the practice of blind bidding has increased. In 1968, a number of the plaintiffs entered into a stipulation with the United States Department of Justice to limit to three the number of films which they could blind bid per year. The parties further stipulated that licenses for certain pictures which had been blind bid could be cancelled by the exhibitor within 48 hours after viewing the motion picture. When the stipulation expired in early 1975, blind bidding increased and by 1977, the year that the subject bill was introduced in the Ohio legislature, the plaintiffs were blind bidding from 60% (United Artists) to 91% (Columbia) of their first-run releases. No one speaks enthusiastically about blind bidding. Rather, it is considered by plaintiffs to be a necessary tool to the profitable marketing of their product. Universal prefers to trade screen if a print is available. Tr. VII-105. For a number of years, United Artists chose as a matter of policy not to blind bid. Buena Vista conceded that blind bidding actually had adverse effects upon their business, but felt it necessary in light of the general industry practice to resort to blind bidding in order to be assured of booking their films in desirable theaters. Other distribution witnesses noted that competition among distributors compelled them to join in the practice in order to assure that they could license their films before all the suitable first-run theaters were already booked by other blind bidding companies. Indeed, some of the plaintiffs’ own blind bid solicitations recite that they are reluctant to resort to such a practice but that it is deemed necessary in light of the fact that exhibitors would otherwise fill their screens with the products of their blind bidding competitors. Exhibit 2-G. Another reason for blind bidding is the impact of television on national marketing strategy. The motion picture industry has made increasing use of the “wide release” pattern of distribution: a simultaneous release of the same motion picture in many theaters across the country. With certain types of films, the wide release has afforded the best financial return. An efficient medium for advertising and promoting a wide release film is national network television. If a picture is to appear nationwide on the same date, a network television commercial can publicize that fact to a high percentage of the national market. Advertising strategy begins long before production of a motion picture is completed. This is particularly so with regard to network television buys, which often must be made from one to nine months in advance of the date the commercial will run. Other forms of advertising are generally less expensive, less efficient, and can be obtained on considerably shorter notice. The local promotion and advertising of a film entails posters, movie trailers, ads in various newspapers and magazines and the use of local radio and television. Some local advertising is tied to particular theaters and playdates, while national network television is not. Advance licensing enables the plaintiffs to plan their advertising campaigns with a number of license agreements in place. Promotion of a film occurs additionally through sale of ancillary products, such as dolls, T-shirts and record albums, based on a film’s theme or characters. Planning and manufacture of such products occurs during film production so that they too may be marketed in connection with the release of the film. Thus, the practice of blind bidding, by assuring contractual agreements with theaters to show the picture on the dates specified, enables producer-distributors to release a film very soon after completion. It permits producer-distributors to plan their distribution arrangements and coordinate the release with advertising and promotion campaigns. On the other hand, the practice of blind bidding works to exhibitors’ disadvantage because it compels them to commit playing time in advance of their viewing a film to assess its potential profitability and its suitability for their particular clientele. F. Guarantees The price an exhibitor pays for the license of a film takes the form of “film rental,” which is a percentage of box office receipts. From the total box office receipts the exhibitor subtracts a predetermined sum representing his expenses, called a “house figure” or “house expense.” The balance constitutes the net receipts and is divided between the exhibitor and the distributor at a fixed percentage, generally “90/10,” the distributor receiving a maximum of 90% and the exhibitor retaining a minimum of 10%. The distributor’s minimum share is assessed in a declining ratio during the period of the run, that is, during the period that a film is being shown at the theater. This arrangement is best explained by hypothetical illustration. Thus, if a theater grosses $10,000 in box office receipts for a one-week engagement, and it deducts therefrom a house figure of $4,000, the remaining net receipts of $6,000 are divided in the 90/10 ratio: the theater owner turns over $5,400 as film rental to the distributor and retains $600 profit. For longer runs, the size of the box office gross usually decreases and the distributor’s proportion of the net receipts diminishes over time. Thus, a typical arrangement calls for the distributor to receive a minimum of 70% of the net receipts in the first week, 60% the second week, 50% the third, 47% the fourth and fifth and the balance of the run at 35%. A “guarantee” is the industry shorthand expression for a guaranteed minimum payment applied toward the film rental that an exhibitor promises to pay the distributor. It is not refundable, and, unlike the film rental, it is not based on a division of box office receipts. In the hypothetical given above, for example, if the theater owner had contracted to pay a guarantee of $5,000, his guarantee would be well within the film rental of $5,400 payable to the distributor. In the event that the motion picture fares poorly at the box office, the distributor still receives the guarantee of $5,000; the film rental percentage figure, which would yield a lesser sum, is disregarded. In the example above, if the box office receipts total only $9,000, the net receipts of $5,000 would equal the amount of guarantee, and the exhibitor will have no profit on the showing of the film. If the box office gross is even less — say $8,000 — the exhibitor must still pay the $5,000 guarantee, taking a loss of $1,000. The guarantee serves several functions. First, since the guarantee is usually required two weeks before a film is shipped to the theater, it is a handy technique for collection from delinquent exhibitors. Second, it is one of the terms which may vary in exhibitor’s bids, and which plaintiffs may consider in evaluating the bids for the best terms. In particular, a large guarantee is occasionally used as a device to break into an existing market by new exhibitors whose lack of known track records would otherwise preclude them from favorable consideration by film distributors. These purposes, however, are secondary. Primarily, the guarantee is used as a risk-shifting device. A distributor who has secured substantial guarantees from exhibitors diminishes any gamble which he takes on the commercial success of the motion picture and transfers some of this risk to the exhibitor. There have been instances in which the plaintiffs have received guarantees sufficient to cover production costs months in advance of the completion of a motion picture. By virtue of the guarantee, the exhibitor assumes the risk that the net receipts will exceed the amount of the guaranteed minimum payment he has promised the distributor. G. The Ohio Act The statutory sections enacted by the Ohio General Assembly in A.S.H.B. 806 regulate licensing procedures within the State of Ohio as follows: § 1333.05 [Definitions.] As used in sections 1333.05 to 1333.07 of the Revised Code: (A) “Theater” means any establishment in which motion pictures are exhibited regularly to the public for charge. (B) “Distributor” means any person engaged in the business of renting, selling, or licensing motion pictures to exhibitors. (C) “Exhibitor” means any person engaged in the business of operating a theater in this state. (D) “Exhibit” or “exhibition” means showing a motion picture to the public for a charge. (E) “Invitation to bid” means a written or oral solicitation or invitation by a distributor to one or more exhibitors to bid or negotiate for the right to exhibit a motion picture in this state. (F) “Bid” means a written or oral proposal by an exhibitor to a distributor, which proposal is in response to an invitation to bid or negotiate and states the terms under which the exhibitor will agree to exhibit a motion picture in this state. (G) “License agreement” means any contract between a distributor and an exhibitor for the exhibition of a motion picture by the exhibitor in this state. (H) “Trade screening” means the showing of a motion picture by a distributor in one of the five municipal corporations within this state having the largest population which showing is open to any exhibitor interested in exhibiting the motion picture. (I) “Blind bidding” means bidding, negotiating, offering terms, accepting a bid, or agreeing to terms for the purpose of entering into a license agreement prior to a trade screening of the motion picture that is the subject of the agreement. (J) “Run” means the continuous exhibition of a motion picture in a defined geographic area for a specified period of time. A “first run” means the initial exhibition of a motion picture in a designated geographic area for a specified period of time. A “subsequent run” means any continuous exhibition of a motion picture in a designated geographic area for a specified period of time after the first run. § 1333.06 [Certain practices of distributors prohibited; effect on license agreements.] (A) No distributor shall engage in blind bidding. (B) No distributor shall condition the granting or execution of a license agreement on a guarantee of a minimum payment to the distributor, if the exhibitor is required by the license agreement to make any payment to the distributor that is based on the attendance or the box office receipts at a theater at which the motion picture is exhibited. (C) No distributor shall condition the granting or execution of a license agreement on the exhibitor’s advancing, more than fourteen days prior to his first exhibition of a motion picture, any money that is to be used as security for the exhibitor’s performance of the license agreement or is to be applied to any payments that the exhibitor is required by the agreement to make to the distributor. (D) Any provision of a license agreement that waives any of the prohibitions of, or fails to comply with, this section or section 1333.07 of the Revised Code is void and unenforceable. Any license agreement that fails to comply with this section and section 1333.07 of the Revised Code is voidable by the exhibitor, if the exhibitor gives the distributor written notice, prior to the exhibitor’s first exhibition of the motion picture that is the subject of the agreement, of his intent to have the agreement voided. § 1333.07 [Invitations to exhibitors to bid; inspection, notice.] (A) If bids are solicited from exhibitors for the purpose of entering into a license agreement, the invitation to bid shall specify: (1) The number and length of runs to which the invitation to bid applies; (2) Whether the invitation to bid applies to a first or subsequent run; (3) The geographic area for each run; (4) The names of all exhibitors who are being given an invitation to bid; (5) The date, hour, and location at which the bid is required to be made; (6) The name and address of the location where the bids will be opened, which location shall be within this state. (B) If the motion picture that is the subject of a bid has not already been trade screened within this state, the distributor soliciting the bid shall include in the invitation to bid the date, time, and location of the trade screening of the motion picture that is the subject of the invitation to bid. (C) Every distributor shall furnish to all exhibitors in this state reasonable and uniform notice of all trade screenings that are held within this state of motion pictures that he is distributing. (D) All bids shall be submitted to the distributor in written form. The distributor or his agent shall open all bids at the same time and in the presence of at least one of the exhibitors, or the agent of an exhibitor, who has submitted a bid. (E) Any exhibitor, or the agent of an exhibitor, who submits a bid for a particular run of a motion picture may, at reasonable times within sixty days after the bid is opened, examine any bid that is made for the same run of the motion picture by another exhibitor. The exhibitor may inspect the bids even if the distributor rejects all bids that are submitted. Within seven business days after a bid for a particular run of a motion picture is accepted, the distributor shall notify in writing each exhibitor who submitted a bid for that run of the motion picture of the terms of the accepted bid and the identity of the successful' bidder. Any bid submitted is nonreturnable. (F) If a distributor issues invitations to bid for a motion picture, he shall not enter into a license agreement for the exhibition of the motion picture except by means of the bidding process specified in this section. If the distributor rejects all bids submitted pursuant to an invitation to bid, he shall notify all exhibitors who submitted bids that he rejected all bids and shall issue a new invitation to bid. The Act alters prior practice in the licensing of motion pictures as follows: (a) It prohibits blind bidding. Thus it requires all motion pictures intended for exhibition in this state to be trade screened prior to commencement of bidding or negotiation for a license. § 1333.05(1) and .06(A). (b) It prohibits guarantees in the following manner: a license may not be conditioned by the distributor on the payment of a guarantee if the license agreement provides for a division of box office receipts such as film rental. § 1333.06(B). (c) It does not substantially alter prior practice with respect to advances. Under prior industry practice, advances rarely if ever were required by plaintiffs to be paid more than 14 days before a motion picture was to be shown. The statute merely imposes a requirement that the producer-distributors not alter this practice to include payment of advances any earlier than 14 days before commencement of a run. § 1333.06(C). (d) It requires “open bidding”: bids received by distributors must be opened simultaneously, exhibitors must be given notice of the opening and those who have submitted a bid must be given an opportunity to be present at the opening and to examine other submitted bids. § 1333.-07(A)(6); § 1333.07(D). (e) It requires a distributor who has solicited bids to follow the prescribed procedure for bidding. Thus, once bids are solicited, the distributor is thereafter prohibited from licensing through negotiation. § 1333.-07(F). (f) It requires trade screening to be held in one of the five largest cities in Ohio. H. Impact of R.C. 1333.05- 07 on Motion Picture Industry: In General Numerous legal and factual issues have been raised in this case concerning the impact of the Ohio statutes on prior practice within the industry. These issues are discussed in greater detail below as they relate to the particular legal theories advanced by the plaintiffs. Certain basic effects of the new law will, however, be discussed generally here. 1. The Importance of Trade Screening to Assessment of Motion Pictures Trade screening is the most effective way for an exhibitor to form an impression about a film and exercise his own judgment regarding its quality, its potential commercial success, and its suitability for the clientele which patronizes a particular theater. Ample evidence demonstrated that the information about a film available to an exhibitor under blind bidding is inadequate for this purpose and sometimes misleading. It is clear that prediction of the commercial success of a motion picture has not and cannot be reduced to an exact science; and that even the most experienced experts in the industry cannot be certain whether a film will break box office records or be a dismal financial failure. But one’s predictions are apt to be more accurate upon viewing the completed film than based on any other information. Typical of the testimony the Court heard on the value of trade screening was the succinct description offered by Charles Sugarman, a Columbus, Ohio, theater owner that: I cannot look at a picture . . . and say that it is going to be a success . . . I don’t know of anyone who really can do [that]. I can look at a picture with my years of experience and I think other exhibitors, too, who are professionals in the field, [can] look at a picture and 99 times out of a hundred say that this is going to be a bomb, it is a very bad picture. Tr. XVI-91. The trade screening requirement doubtless reduces the uncertainty facing an exhibitor when determining whether and on what terms a picture should be licensed. 2. Delay Much has been made of the effect of the trade screening requirement to delay release of a motion picture. There was little direct evidence of delays actually caused by the Act. Based on all the evidence heard, however, and on reasonable inferences to be drawn from that evidence, the Court finds that the ban on blind bidding and its concomitant requirement of trade screening does threaten to delay the release of certain films in certain limited circumstances. Since R.C. 1333.05-06 prohibits bidding until after trade screening, it necessarily entails that release of a completed motion picture is suspended during the time it takes to complete the bidding procedure. However, the instances in which this suspension actually works a delay in release of a motion picture are rare. First, a delay would not occur directly as a result of the statute, but as a result of the statute in combination with delays in production, a matter over which the plaintiffs have primary control. Plaintiffs determine what the release date should be and build into their production schedule a certain amount of leeway for production delays which is usually ample to accommodate a distribution delay. For many reasons, in spite of their generally expressed preference for prompt release, plaintiffs often hold a completed film for months before releasing it. Even in those instances when the leeway is consumed by production delays, as where an Act of God destroys the set or a consummate director takes too long striving for perfection, the plaintiffs have adjusted their schedules to get the film out on its set release date by such methods as speeding up post-production operations or working overtime, or they have changed the release date and substituted another film. See infra note 10. Occasionally, a film is delayed in production and is actually completed within a few days of its scheduled release date. When that occurs, the time required by the bidding process may delay a film beyond the contemplated release date. It appears that this would only happen with a certain type of release pattern called a “wide release,” involving the same day opening of a film in several hundred theaters nationwide. A wide release film, which production lags have brought down to the wire, might well be delayed in Ohio past the national release date. Even with the wide release date, however, a film is occasionally released in waves as much as a month apart. Tr. V-114. Other patterns, such as the “platform” or “roll-out” patterns, involve the intentionally selective opening of a picture in a few places in the country and a gradual distribution to other theaters in other communities. Based on such factors as its theme and expected audience, the plaintiffs determine months ahead of time what sort of release pattern would be most effective for a particular film. Given a motion picture scheduled for a national wide release on a certain date that has undergone production delays preventing its completion until a few days before the scheduled release date, it is necessary to assess the length of the delay that might be caused by the Ohio Act. The time it takes to obtain license agreements is for the most part within the control of plaintiffs. Before the Act became effective, the bidding process itself took anywhere from a week to several months. In most cases, the period was around two to four weeks. Much of this time was consumed by plaintiffs’ distribution departments evaluating bids to determine whether they were acceptable. Exhibitors, on the other hand, often submitted their bids by telephone or telegram. The longer periods were caused by a producer-distributor’s rejection of submitted bids as too low in favor of rebidding or negotiation. Because under advance licensing plaintiffs were under little pressure to complete their licensing arrangements quickly, the time it took to license films prior to the Act is a poor measure of the time that the Act will actually delay a motion picture; At the time of trial, the statute had been in effect approximately eight months. Evidence of statutorily-caused delays was scant, perhaps because distributors had rushed to blind bid films as much as a year ahead of their scheduled release dates before the Act became effective in October 1978. There was some testimony by plaintiffs’ witnesses that delays were expected to occur with several films scheduled for release in the latter half of 1979. One film expected to be delayed, “Escape from Alcatraz,” was apparently completed one week before its scheduled release date and was successfully licensed in Ohio to appear on that date. The only testimony of delays which actually occurred was provided by Mr. Mancuso, Executive Vice President for marketing and distribution for Paramount Pictures, Inc. He testified that two motion pictures scheduled for summer release in 1979 — “Players” and “Bloodline” — suffered delays of one month each in certain markets in Ohio where they had not been blind bid prior to the effective date of the Act. “Players” is a prime example of the film described above in which a delay might occur: It suffered production delays when one of its main stars contracted hepatitis and a director broke an ankle. The final print was available on June 4, 1979, but an additional editing change was made thereafter. Its national release date was set for June 8. Paramount met the release date in major Ohio cities and in other blind bid markets across the nation, but delayed it in some smaller Ohio cities by four weeks. Tr. IV — 56-60. There was no evidence that the Act has caused a delay in excess of four weeks. Based on this evidence, the Court finds that in certain limited circumstances, the Ohio Act, working in concert with production failures, can delay a film in Ohio past its scheduled release date. Such a delay is an infrequent occurrence and is not apt to exceed four weeks. 3. Increased Costs Another alleged effect of the statute on which plaintiffs put considerable emphasis is that of increased cost. Plaintiffs allege that the statute will cost them money, both by increasing the cost of producing and marketing their product, and by diminishing the returns on their investment at the box office. The Ohio anti-blind bidding law has a potential for increasing the plaintiffs’ production and marketing costs. First, to the extent it may precipitate any delay in release, the statute will cause plaintiffs to incur the daily carrying charges for their investment in the film for the period of the delay. As discussed earlier, the evidence concerning the production of a motion picture from start to finish indicates that it is often a protracted endeavor with many potential problems of delay, all of which are within the control of the producers or those with whom they contract. On the other hand, the potential delay caused by the Act will rarely occur and even then will rarely exceed two to four weeks. When viewed against the average film production schedule of a year or more, the overall impact of the potential delay caused by the statutes is not appreciable. Second, plaintiffs allege their costs will be increased by the more cumbersome mechanics of the bidding procedure itself. The testimony supports a conclusion that the plaintiffs have made some minor changes in prior procedures as a result of the new law, but that the new bidding procedures do not increase plaintiffs’ distribution costs in a substantial way. As to plaintiffs’ allegations regarding lower revenues, I do find that to the extent the statute reallocates the risk of a box office failure away from exhibitors and onto plaintiffs, it may well decrease plaintiffs’ revenues. On the other hand, this loss is no doubt offset somewhat by the higher bid terms plaintiffs get from exhibitors who bid on a trade screened motion picture. Tr. 1-121-22; VII — 112; VIII-70-71. I am not satisfied that plaintiffs have proved their allegations that the Act will reduce the size of audiences or seriously hamper plaintiffs’ ability to plan for release at peak periods and to gear a film’s release to advertising campaigns. Nor can the Court draw the further inference that lower revenues would be caused thereby. Finally, I find insufficient support for plaintiffs’ theory that anticipated higher costs and lower returns under the new law will discourage investment. II. Jurisdiction and Related Matters Plaintiffs originally named several state officials as defendants in this suit alleging that actions taken by these officials in approving, certifying, and incorporating the Act into law were void by reason of the unconstitutionality of the Act. Prompted by this unusual jurisdictional posture, the defendants sought, prior to trial, to have the case dismissed for lack of jurisdiction or to have the Court abstain from exercising its jurisdiction. The defendants stated two grounds for their jurisdictional challenges: first, that the Eleventh Amendment barred this suit for the reason that the officials are defendants in name only, the real party defendant being the State of Ohio; and second, that the plaintiffs failed to demonstrate a justiciable case or controversy as required by Article III of the United States Constitution. The Court considered these serious contentions at length in a pretrial memorandum and order. Allied Artists Corp. v.. Rhodes, 473 F.Supp. 560 (S.D.Ohio 1979). A. The Eleventh Amendment Concerning the Eleventh Amendment challenge, the Court recognized that it has no jurisdiction to hear a challenge to the constitutionality of an act of the legislature brought under the guise of a suit against state officials who have no connection with enforcement of the Act. Fitts v. McGhee, 172 U.S. 516, 19 S.Ct. 269, 43 L.Ed. 535 (1899). Nonetheless, the Court noted that the fiction created by Ex parte Young, 209 U.S. 123, 28 S.Ct. 441, 52 L.Ed. 714 (1908), whereby a state officer seeking to enforce an unconstitutional statute' is deemed stripped of his state-derived immunity and may be sued to enjoin the statute’s enforcement arguably permitted this action to proceed against Governor Rhodes. Viewing the facts and arguments from the standpoint called for in ruling on a motion to dismiss, the Court denied the motion to dismiss Governor Rhodes, finding tentatively that as to him, there existed both "requirements necessary to trigger the Ex parte Young fiction: a connection with the enforcement of the Act and a real likelihood that the connection would be employed against plaintiffs’ interests. The Governor’s connection with enforcement of the Act is derived from his general duty “to see that the laws of [Ohio] are faithfully executed,” found in Article III, § 6 of the Ohio Constitution. Finding no connection between the other named defendants and the enforcement of the Act, the Court dismissed those defendants. Upon examination of case law concerning the application of the Young doctrine in similar cases, the Court found it helpful to view the cases along a continuum and determined that this action arguably belongs on that end of the continuum where are found cases holding a sufficient likelihood that the connection would be brought to bear against a plaintiff’s interests exists where a state enacts regulatory legislation creating rights and relationships of substantial public interest not readily protectible in litigation between private parties. In stating this conclusion, the Court cautioned that its holding was tentative and would be re-examined in light of the clearer factual setting affordable by trial. The remaining defendant in this case, Governor Rhodes, reasserted his motion to dismiss on Eleventh Amendment grounds at the close of plaintiffs’ case, and again at the close of all the evidence, asserting that the likelihood that the Governor would use his general power to enforce the Act at issue here was so tenuous that to permit this action to proceed against the Governor would convert the Young fiction to fantasy in this case. Tr. XV-20. Specifically, defendant asserts that this action belongs at the other end of the spectrum within that category of cases concerning statutes that merely govern rights between private parties readily resolvable by litigation between private parties. The defendant bases this argument on the premise that the statute does not ban blind bidding or any other forbidden practice altogether but permits it at the discretion of the exhibitors, since so long as exhibitors do not challenge the validity of á license agreement incorporating any of the prohibited acts, the acts may be performed. Further, the defendant argues that the only public interest at issue here is the interest in permitting exhibitors to exercise a free market judgment, and that this is satisfied without the Governor’s intervention. It is indeed disconcerting that after more than three weeks of trial, further arguments and briefing by the parties, the Court nonetheless finds itself in little better position than before to rule on this issue. Plaintiffs, who bear the burden to establish the existence of jurisdiction in this Court, presented no evidence that the Governor has attempted to use his general enforcement powers to obtain compliance with the Act. Nor did the defendants present evidence that the exhibitors have voluntarily entered into license agreements containing terms prohibited by the Act. The Act appears to be self-enforcing, and plaintiffs have apparently altered their procedures to comply with its provisions from the date it became effective. The Court is therefore redirected to the language of the statute. Ruling on the basis of the text of the Act is inherently precarious, since the facial obscurity which the Court noted earlier, 473 F.Supp. at 569, has not been significantly remedied by evidence on the Act’s application. Opinion testimony by members of the industry regarding what the Act means and how it will operate was in such conflict that it was of little overall benefit to the Court. The Court is unaware of any Ohio court interpretation shedding light on this issue. The problem arises because of the way in which the statute purports to remedy the practices it seeks to prohibit. It does this by rendering void portions of license agreements containing prohibited terms and by rendering voidable at the option of the exhibitor entire agreements violating both the section on prohibited terms and the section on bidding procedures. R.C. 1333.06(D). Defendant asserts that the only involvement of the state mandated by the statute is to deny Ohio courts power to sanction agreements containing prohibited terms. Read in this way, the statute is self-enforcing, and merely establishes a defense to be used by exhibitors in suits brought on contracts violative of its terms. To state that a statute is facially self-enforcing, however, is not to state that the statute is immunized from review by the Eleventh Amendment. As I understand Ex parte Young and its progeny in this area, in determining the likelihood of a Governor’s acting to enforce a statute through his general powers when a statute is by its terms self-enforcing, for the purposes of ascertaining the applicability of the Ex parte Young fiction, the Court looks to the interests of the state in seeing the legislation enforced and to the ability of private parties to effectuate its mandate. The Court spoke before of a continuum of decisions ranging from those dealing with purely private matters and those dealing with matters in which the public interest was substantial. A review of those cases and the development of the law since the Court’s earlier decision has not yielded any reason persuading the Court to abandon its placement of this case on the continuum with those eases applying Ex parte Young to make the Governor amenable to suit. The defendant has called the Court’s attention to the case of Shell Oil Co. v. Noel, 608 F.2d 208 (1st Cir. 1979), in which the First Circuit Court of Appeals recently affirmed a district court’s dismissal of a complaint naming the Governor and Attorney General of Rhode Island as defendants in a suit challenging a state statute regulating trade practices in the area of petroleum products. Although the district court had dismissed the state officials on Eleventh Amendment grounds, stating that they had no “connection with enforcement of the act,” id., at 211, the circuit court affirmed the dismissal “on the ground that there is no ‘case or controversy’ within Article III of the United States Constitution.” Id., at 210. Regarding the Eleventh Amendment issue, the circuit court’s reasoning parallels the reasoning of this Court in its earlier order. The court first restated the foundation principles of Ex parte Young: In a suit brought to have a declaration of the unconstitutionality of a state statute or to enjoin the enforcement of the statute an officer of a state is an appropriate defendant if he has some connection with the enforcement of the act. Ex parte Young, 209 U.S. 123, 28 S.Ct. 441, 52 L.Ed. 714 (1908). It is not necessary that his duty should be declared in the act which is to be enforced. Shell Oil, supra, 608 F.2d at 211. Referring to Chief Judge Friendly’s decision in Gras v. Stevens, 415 F.Supp. 1148 (S.D.N.Y.1976) (three-judge court), the court agreed that “[t]he mere fact that a governor is under a general duty to enforce state laws does not make him a proper defendant in every action attacking the constitutionality of a state statute,” and recognized that “[o]f critical importance are the nature of the statute and the state officer’s connection with that statute.” Shell Oil, supra, 608 F.2d at 211-12. Reasoning that the statute’s declaration of certain acts as “unlawful” might prompt a Rhode Island court to permit the governor or attorney general to bring an equitable action to enforce the statute in the interests of the general welfare, the court acknowledged that the officers might have a sufficient connection with the statute’s enforcement to be proper parties defendant in the action. Id., at 212. However, finding that this connection rested on unsettled issues of Rhode Island law, the circuit court chose to refrain from resolving the question, preferring instead to dispose of the case on Article III grounds. I perceive no inconsistency between the reasoning of the Shell Oil opinion and the Court’s decision in the instant case. I disagree with that opinion only insofar as it may be read to imply that a resolution of state law by state courts is a prerequisite to a decision of the federal jurisdictional issue. Moreover, there is some evidence in the record of substantial public interests which may have been intended to be served by the statute — interests which would not be vindicated in the event that the statute is read as suggested by the defendant as permitting blind bidding, guarantees and advances at the initiative of the exhibitor. Thus, for example, the defendant has suggested, and the Court finds, that it is a reasonable inference that the statute was designed in part to rectify a perceived imbalance in bargaining power of exhibitors and producer-distributors by shifting the risk of motion picture box office failures from exhibitors to producer-distributors. This risk-shifting effect might be thwarted if exhibitors, already in a weak bargaining position vis-a-vis distributors, succumb to the temptation “voluntarily” to accept terms which disadvantage them in order to obtain films, notwithstanding the express prohibition of the inclusion of such terms in license agreements at a distributor’s insistence. If such developments were observed, the Governor might find it necessary to step in to insure that the intent of the Act is realized. Likewise, extensive violations might render resolution of widespread disputes by individual contractual litigation impracticable and warrant governmental enforcement. The defendant also argued and presented some exhibitor testimony supporting the proposition that market practices prior to the Act were driving up ticket prices at the box office and that the statute is designed in part to prohibit practices tending to encourage this trend. Assuming this to be a purpose of the Act, it is reasonable to conclude that the interest of the Ohio movie-going public — the consumers of films in Ohio — in reasonable ticket prices is to be served by the Act. Accordingly, there are substantial interests which the Act is designed to protect and which are not certain of vindication through private dispute resolution. Upon closer examination of the Act, it is apparent that the Act does more than simply establish a defense to a private contract action for exhibitors or deprive state courts of jurisdiction to enforce certain contract provisions. It is trade practice legislation that prohibits certain acts and in addition declares what legal effect contracts specifying those acts to be performed will have. The Act contains numerous commands which are not likely to be enforced in a contract action by a distributor to enforce a license agreement with an exhibitor. Section 1333.07 sets out detailed requirements concerning the conduct of soliciting and acting on bids, many of which are never spelled out in a license agreement. Thus, for example, § 1333.07(C) provides that every distributor: shall furnish to all exhibitors in this state reasonable and uniform notice of all trade screenings that are held within this state of motion pictures that he is distributing. As a matter of trade practice, a distributor is unlikely to include a term in a license agreement waiving his obligation to give notice to all exhibitors in the state of trade screenings of forthcoming films, because the trade screening itself would have occurred prior to drawing up the license agreement with a particular exhibitor. If, as defendant urges, the only remedy for violations of the Act is the right of an exhibitor to resist enforcement of an offending license agreement, substantial obstacles lie in the path of the private exhibitor seeking to remedy a violation of this provision. Assuming for the sake of argument, of course, that such a term did appear in a license agreement, then the term would be rendered void by the statute and the exhibitor could assert its invalidity in a private suit. As plaintiffs point out, however, a distributor could give notice of trade screenings to a handful of exhibitors, knowing full well that the exhibitors with whom he entered license agreements would not be wont to complain of his failure to give notice to other exhibitors. The statute itself does not expressly provide for a cause of action for persons not party to the offending license agreement. This provision and several other provisions of § 1333.07 are not certain of vindication through private litigation. For these reasons, I find no persuasive grounds to depart from my earlier holding that Ex parte Young does apply to this action to remove the Eleventh Amendment barrier and render Governor Rhodes amenable to suit. B. Case or Controversy In its pretrial memorandum and order, the Court likewise reserved for final ruling the question whether this case satisfies Article III justiciability requirements sufficient to give the Court jurisdiction. 473 F.Supp. at 571. Nothing in the record before me nor subsequent developments of the law, however, persuades me to depart from the tentative holding there set forth. The legal principle governing a case such as this was stated earlier by the court: [A]n actual threat of enforcement by state officials is not required for justiciability where, as in this case, the statute is mandatory, self-enforcing, and results in immediate economic injury. Id., at 570; relying on Lake Carriers’ Association v. MacMullan, 406 U.S. 498, 92 S.Ct. 1749, 32 L.Ed.2d 257 (1972); Pierce v. Society of Sisters, 268 U.S. 510, 45 S.Ct. 571, 69 L.Ed. 1070 (1925); Pennsylvania v. West Virginia, 262 U.S. 553, 43 S.Ct. 658, 67 L.Ed. 1117 (1923). The more recent decision of the Supreme Court in Babbitt v. Farm Workers, 442 U.S. 289, 99 S.Ct. 2301, 60 L.Ed.2d 895 (1979) reinforces that principle. Facts which the Court assumed for purposes of ruling on the defendant’s motion to dismiss have been borne out at trial. The statute prohibits certain acts and prescribes others. Its commands have been shown to have a direct' and substantial impact on the plaintiffs’ established business practices. The plaintiffs have assumed responsibility for compliance with its terms as of its effective date. As interpreted above, the Act does impose an obligation on the plaintiffs to comply with its terms, notwithstanding that no actual threat of enforcement by state officials has been made. By virtue of its self-enforcing nature the Act-does work an immediate impact on the plaintiffs, and accordingly I conclude a live controversy exists in this case. C. Abstention The Court similarly finds no reason to alter its ruling refusing to abstain from exercising its jurisdiction in this action. 473 F.Supp. at 572. Although considerable clarification might result from a state court construction of the operation, impact and purpose of the statute, and such a construction might benefit the Court in determining the precise outlines on the issues before it, the Court is unaware of any pending case in state court apt to produce such a construction, nor does the Court believe that such a construction would avoid or significantly modify the federal issues presented to the Court. Babbitt v. Farm Workers, supra, 442 U.S. at 306, 99 S.Ct. at 2313; Colorado River Water Conservation District v. United States, 424 U.S. 800, 813, 96 S.Ct. 1236, 1244, 47 L.Ed.2d 483 (1976); Harris County Comm’rs. v. Moore, 420 U.S. 77, 84, 95 S.Ct. 870, 875, 43 L.Ed.2d 32 (1975). III. Due Process It is clear that the Court’s inquiry need not extend to any of the other constitutional theories advanced by the plaintiffs if the Ohio Act does not meet the threshold test of rationally relating to a legitimate governmental objective. Nebbia v. New York, 291 U.S. 502, 54 S.Ct. 505, 78 L.Ed. 940 (1934). Plaintiffs claim the Act does not relate rationally to any legitimate governmental interest. It is appropriate at this juncture to examine plaintiffs’ claim and discuss the purposes the Act was designed to serve and its relation to those purposes. Substantive due process requires economic regulation to meet a fairly minimal standard: So far as the requirement of due process is concerned, and in the absence of other constitutional restriction, a state is free to adopt whatever economic policy may reasonably be deemed to promote public welfare, and to enforce that policy by legislation adapted to its purpose. The courts are without authority either to declare such policy, or, when it is declared by the legislature, to override it. If the laws passed are seen to have a reasonable relation to a proper legislative purpose, and are neither arbitrary nor discriminatory, the requirements of due process are satisfied, and judicial determination to that effect renders a court functus officio. Id. at 537, 54 S.Ct. at 516. The due process analysis lies at the foundation of further constitutional inquiry. Therefore, the following discussion represents findings and conclusions relevant to later discussion as well as to the due process claim. The Governor has asserted a number of purposes the Act was intended to serve. The Governor contends that the Act was a legislative response to anticompetitive and abusive motion picture distribution