I. INTRODUCTION... 4 II. OVERVIEW OF THE ACT A. Codification... 4 B. Section C. Section D. Exemptions... 5 E. Enforcement...

Similar documents
2(f) --Creates liability for the knowing recipient of a discriminatory price.

TITLE 15 COMMERCE AND TRADE CHAPTER 1 MONOPOLIES AND COMBINATIONS IN RESTRAINT OF TRADE

Antitrust Injury in Robinson-Patman Cases: What s Left?

COMMENTS. 8 Ibid. Id., at Stat (1936), 15 U.S.C.A. 13 (1952).

How Much Light has Sun Oil Shed on "Meeting Competition" Under the Robinson-Patman Act?

Antitrust Considerations for Participants in the Commodity Markets. Presented by: Michael H. Knight Stephen J. Obie

United States Court of Appeals

Price Discrimination - Good Faith Meeting of Competition

Caveat Emptor: Liability of Buyers for Inducing Violations of Sections 2(d) and 2(e) of the Robinson-Patman Act

Free Enterprise - Price Discrimination Under the Clayton Act

Notre Dame Law Review

The Second Attack on Price Discrimination: The Robinson-Patman Act

THE UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO LAW REVIEW

Title 7: AGRICULTURE AND ANIMALS

Buyer Liability Under Section 2(f ) of the Robinson-Patman Act

1a APPENDIX 1. Section 3 of the Communications Act [47 U.S.C. 153] provides in pertinent part:

Introduction into US business law VIII FS 2017

ENTERPRISES., INC, ET AL * CASE NO.: 24-C * Defendants * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * MEMORANDUM OF DECISION

Case: 3:14-cv slc Document #: 77 Filed: 04/27/15 Page 1 of 8

Proper Scope of the Non-Profit Institutions Exemption: Abott Laboratories v. Portland Retail Druggists Association, The

1 Manufacturer Manufacturer Manufacturer 2 Distributor Distributor Distributor Distributor Distributor Distributor 3 Consumers

Trade and Commerce Laws

NC General Statutes - Chapter 62 Article 15 1

PCI SSC Antitrust Compliance Guidelines

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN JOSE DIVISION

EQUAL PRICE TREATMENT UNDER THE ROBINSON-PATMAN ACT

The Robinson-Patman Act and Treble Damage Suits

Follow this and additional works at:

South Carolina Code of Laws (Unannotated) Current through the end of the 2008 Session DISCLAIMER

Resolving the Conflict Between the Sherman Act and the Robinson-Patman Act: United States v. United States Gypsum Co.

Assembly Bill No. 518 Committee on Commerce and Labor

Electric Transportation Systems Global Business Signal.ing(GETS), and Jeffrey R Immelt, Chief Executive

Fair Trading Act 1998

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY PADUCAH DIVISION CIVIL ACTION NO. 5:98-CV-108-R CONWOOD COMPANY, L.P., ET AL.

ANTITRUST COMPLIANCE STANDARDS MISSOURI TELECOMMUNICATIONS INDUSTRY ASSOCIATION

Not All Price Discriminations are Unlawful Under the Robinson-Patman Act

Canadian Competition Law

Anti-Trust Law - Applicability of Section 7 of the Clayton Act to Bank Mergers - United States v. Philadelphia National Bank, 374 U.S.

Case 7:18-cv Document 1 Filed 01/12/18 Page 1 of 15 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS

Anglo-American Law. Leegin Creative Leather Products, Inc. V. Psks, Inc., Dba Kay s Kloset, Kay s Shoes. Aykut ÖZDEMİR* * Attorney at law.

Buyer's Liability for Inducing Violations of Sections 2(D) and 2(E) of the Robinson-Patman Act

CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT. No Argued March 2, Decided June 20, 1960.

GUIDELINES CONCERNING ADMINISTRATIVE GUIDANCE UNDER THE ANTIMONOPOLY ACT. June 30, Fair Trade Commission

3.2 Antitrust Sherman Act (Section 1, Per Se Violation) Tying Agreement Defense Of Justification

Case 1:05-cv MRB Document 27 Filed 09/08/2006 Page 1 of 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO WESTERN DIVISION

ANTITRUST COMPLIANCE GUIDE FOR THE MANAGED FUNDS ASSOCIATION

Case 2:16-cv JAR-JPO Document 69 Filed 09/20/17 Page 1 of 11 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF KANSAS

DOWNLOAD PDF TO AMEND SECTIONS 7 AND 11 OF THE CLAYTON ACT

Case 1:12-cv DLC Document 89-2 Filed 08/03/12 Page 1 of 20 EXHIBIT 2

COMMENT. ABUSE OF DISCRETION: ADMINISTRATIVE EXPERTISE vs. JUDICIAL SURVEILLANCE

Syllabus -- Franchise and Distribution Law/Professor Devlin/Fall 2008

Title 10: COMMERCE AND TRADE

The Meaning of the "Injury to Competition" Provision of the Robinson-Patman Act

Implementing Regulations of Competition Law

Client Advisory. United States Antitrust Guidelines. Corporate Department. I. The U.S. Antitrust Laws. July 2013

Legal Methodology in Antitrust Law

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF ALASKA. Appeal from the Superior Court, Third Judicial District, Kenai, Carl Bauman, Judge.

DRAFT LAW ON COMPETITION OF CAMBODIA. Version 5.5

Antitrust and Intellectual Property

REVISED DBQ (2003 Form B)

Case 1:15-cv Document 1 Filed 07/02/15 Page 1 of 25 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

Procedure on application for guidance When determining an application for guidance, the Commission shall follow such procedure as may be specified.

Case: 1:17-cv Document #: 1 Filed: 03/08/17 Page 1 of 14 PageID #:1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA WESTERN DIVISION

Case: 1:18-cv Document #: 1 Filed: 06/08/18 Page 1 of 15 PageID #:1

COUNT II INJUNCTIVE RELIEF FOR COMBINATION OR CONSPIRACY IN RESTRAINT OF TRADE OR COMMERCE {15 U.S.C. 1, 26)

SATNAM DISTRIBUTORS LLC v. COMMONWEALTH-ALTADIS, INC. et al Doc. 37 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

Loyola University Chicago Law Journal

ABA Antitrust Section Fall Forum Legislation: What is Congress Doing?

The Price Discrimination Provisions of the Robinson-Patman Act: A Forthcoming Clarification of the Jurisdictional Requirements?

One Hundred Fifth Congress of the United States of America

Case 1:08-cv RJL Document 3 Filed 12/15/2008 Page 1 of 38

GCR THE HANDBOOK OF COMPETITION ENFORCEMENT AGENCIES. A Global Competition Review special report published in association with: NOTES.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA GAINESVILLE DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA BEFORE FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION. Mary L. Azcuenaga Janet D. Steiger Roscoe B. Starek, III Christine A.

IC Chapter 11. Food: Eggs Offered for Sale and State Egg Board

Case 1:19-cv Document 3 Filed 01/16/19 Page 1 of 16 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK. Case No.

Restrictive Trade Practices, Monopolies and Price Control 2011 No. C 2013 RESTRICTIVE TRADE PRACTICES, MONOPOLIES AND PRICE CONTROL BILL, 2011

Case 1:17-cv FDS Document 1 Filed 02/23/17 Page 1 of 10 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS EASTERN DIVISION COMPLAINT

WikiLeaks Document Release

160-B:6 Requirements for Sale of Fireworks. I. Any person who desires to sell display and consumer fireworks as limited by RSA 160-B:2 may apply to

as amended by ACT To provide for the control of prices and other incidental matters.

WHAT EVERY IN-HOUSE LAWYER NEEDS TO KNOW ABOUT ANTITRUST AND COMPETITION LAW

Prevention Of Corruption

INTERNATIONAL SUPPLY AND DISTRIBUTION ARRANGEMENTS: CURRENT TRENDS & ISSUES. By David B. Eberhardt and John E. McCann, Jr.

Case: 1:17-cv Document #: 1 Filed: 03/08/17 Page 1 of 14 PageID #:1

One to Keep a Close Eye On Bradford County Permits the Pennsylvania Attorney General to Proceed with Novel Claims against Two Oil and Gas Operators

MCKENZIE-WILLAMETTE HOSPITAL v. PEACEHEALTH NO HA FINAL INSTRUCTIONS OCTOBER 28, 2003

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS MARSHALL DIVISION

Case 1:12-cv JLK Document 1 Filed 07/26/12 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 33 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

Case Number: CIV-MARTINEZ-GOODMAN DEFAULT FINAL JUDGMENT AS TO DEFENDANTS YOUR YELLOW PAGES. INC., CITY PAGES. INC..

Bylaws for the Zonta Madison Foundation, Inc.

MEMORANDUM. Criminal Procedure and Remedies Issues Recommended for Commission Study

Case 1:12-cv Document 2-1 Filed 12/20/12 Page 1 of 9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. Plaintiff, Defendant.

Case 1:13-cv RWR Document 29-1 Filed 04/19/13 Page 1 of 21 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

Case 1:10-cv RJL Document 3-1 Filed 03/22/10 Page 1 of 12 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

ORDINANCE NO

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Transcription:

I. INTRODUCTION... 4 II. OVERVIEW OF THE ACT... 4 A. Codification... 4 B. Section 2... 4 C. Section 3... 5 D. Exemptions... 5 E. Enforcement... 5 III. PRICE DISCRIMINATION UNDER THE ROBINSON-PATMAN ACT... 5 A. Introduction to the Prima Facie Case... 5 1. Statutory language of Section 2(a)... 5 2. Most notable recent development... 6 B. Elements of a Section 2(a) Violation... 7 1. Summary of the elements of a Section 2(a) violation... 7 2. Two completed sales to two different purchasers... 7 3. Reasonably contemporaneous... 9 4. By the same seller... 10 5. Engaged in commerce... 11 6. Of commodities... 13 7. Of like grade and quality... 15 8. For use, consumption or resale within the United States or any territory thereof... 16 9. At different/discriminatory prices... 17 10. With injurious effect... 22 C. Defenses to a Section 2(a) Prima Facie Case... 30 1. Itemized... 30 2. Section 2(a) Cost Justification Defense... 30 3. Section 2(a) Changing Conditions Defense... 31 4. Section 2(b) Meeting Competition Defense... 32 IV. EXEMPTIONS FROM THE PRICE DISCRIMINATION PORTION OF THE ROBINSON-PATMAN ACT... 35 A. The Cooperative Exemption... 35 1. The statute... 35 2. Interpretation... 35 B. Charitable Institution Exemption... 36 1. The statute... 36

2. Case Law Interpretation... 36 3. FTC Official Guidance... 36 4. FTC Unofficial Guidance... 37 V. SECTION 2(c) BROKERAGE PAYMENTS... 37 A. The Violation... 37 1. Relevant statutory language... 37 2. The elements... 38 B. Court Interpretations of Prima Facie Case... 38 1. Price discrimination not required... 38 2. The services rendered exception to Section 2(c) violations... 38 3. Section 2(c) and Commercial Bribery... 38 4. No requirement of antitrust injury... 39 VI. SECTIONS 2 (d) AND 2(e) DISCRIMINATORY ALLOWANCES OR SERVICES... 40 A. The Statute and the Elements... 40 1. Section 2(d) -- allowances... 40 2. Section 2(e) -- services... 40 3. Interpreted... 41 4. Elements of a prima facie violation of Section 2(d) or Section 2(e)... 41 5. No anti-competitive injury requirement... 41 6. The Fred Meyer Guides... 42 B. The Scope of a Section 2(d) or Section 2(e) Violation... 42 1. Promotional services or facilities... 42 2. Resale required... 43 3. Proportionality... 43 4. Among competitors... 44 C. Defenses to Section 2(d) or Section 2(e) Violation... 45 1. Meeting competition defense... 45 2. Cost justification defense... 45 D. Section 2(a) Compared to Sections 2(d) and (e)... 45 E. Slotting Allowances... 45 1. FTC official comment... 45 2. Unofficial FTC guidance... 45 3. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. v. Philip Morris Inc., 60 F.Supp. 2d 502 (M.D.N.C. 1999). (Philip Morris preliminarily enjoined, under Section 1 of the Sherman Act, from using new Retail Leaders display allowance program that gave convenience store outlets promotional allowances conditioned on their acceptance of various displays and restrictions on competitors displays.... 47 2

4. In re McCormick & Company, Inc., Docket No. C-3939 (Agreement Containing Consent Order April 27, 2000) Federal Trade Commission enters into Agreement Containing Consent Order that certain price discrimination practices of McCormick & Company, including certain slotting allowances, constitute secondary-level price discrimination in violation of Section 2(a).... 47 5. Federal Trade Commission also held public hearings on slotting allowance issues, www.ftc.gov/bc/slotting/index.htm, and issued a report entitled Slotting Allowances in the Retail Grocery Industry: Selected Case Studies of Slotting Allowances in Five Product Categories (Nov. 2003).... 47 VII. SECTION 2(f) BUYER LIABILITY... 47 A. The Violation... 47 1. Statutory language... 47 2. Elements... 48 3. Liability derivative... 48 B. Jurisdictional Elements... 49 C. Enforcement... 49 1. Automatic Canteen... 49 2. Knowledge required... 49 D. Allowances or Services... 49 VIII. PRICE DISCRIMINATION AND STATE LAW... 49 A. Comparison with the Robinson-Patman Act... 49 IX. BIBLIOGRAPHY... 50 A. Legislative History... 50 B. Principal Commentaries... 50 APPENDIX A APPENDIX B APPENDICES 3

I. INTRODUCTION The Robinson-Patman Act was enacted in 1936 to solidify and enhance the Clayton Act s attack on discriminatory pricing. The Act was designed to address specific types of harmful pricing behavior, in particular the favoring of then newly developing chain stores over long established, independent, but smaller retailers. The Act itself has been criticized as being convoluted and unnecessarily complex, as well as out of step with the rest of the antitrust laws. Although cases under the Act are now infrequently brought by the Federal Trade Commission and the Department of Justice, there has been a significant amount of private litigation in recent years. It has, however, become increasingly difficult for plaintiffs to win Robinson-Patman Act cases. This has been due primarily to the difficulties a plaintiff faces in proving antitrust injury. II. OVERVIEW OF THE ACT A. Codification The Robinson-Patman Act is codified at 15 U.S.C. 13, 13a, 13b, and 21a. An amendment was added in 1938 at 15 U.S.C. 13c. The Act itself has three main sections, starting with section 2 (there is no section 1 of the Act). The Act is usually referred to according to its internal sections 2, 3 and 4, and not its United States Code sections. B. Section 2 2(a) --Prohibits price discrimination; sets forth the defenses of cost justification and changing conditions. 2(b) --Sets forth the third defense against price discrimination of meeting competition. 2(c) --Outlaws both the payment and receipt of brokerage fees, except for services actually rendered. 2(d) --Prohibits discriminatory payments for services or facilities provided by the customer on behalf of the seller. 2(e) --Prohibits discriminatory provision of services or facilities by the seller to the customer. price. 2(f) --Creates liability for knowingly receiving or inducing a discriminatory See 15 U.S.C. 13. 4 NY4 116281.10

C. Section 3 Section 3 (15 U.S.C. 13a) creates criminal liability for three areas of discriminatory pricing covered generally by section 2. These areas are 1. Participating in a sale of goods of like grade, quality, and quantity while also providing the purchaser with a discount, rebate, allowance, or advertising service charge not provided to the purchaser s competitors. 2. Charging different prices in different geographic areas in the United States, with the purpose of destroying competition, or eliminating a competitor, in the area where a lower price is charged. 3. Selling goods at unreasonably low prices for the purpose of destroying competition or eliminating a competitor. Although this section is still part of the Act, it is hardly ever enforced. D. Exemptions Section 4 of the Act (15 U.S.C. 13b) and the 1938 amendment to the Act (15 U.S.C. 13c) create two exemptions from the preceding provisions of the Act. Under section 4, cooperative associations, and under section 13c, non-profit institutions, are exempt from the provisions of the Act. E. Enforcement Finally, another section of the Act, 15 U.S.C. 21a, is an enforcement provision, assigning jurisdiction to enforce compliance under the Act generally to the Federal Trade Commission, unless involving common carriers, banks, air carriers, or common carriers engaged in wire or radio communication, in which case other agencies have jurisdiction. III. PRICE DISCRIMINATION UNDER THE ROBINSON-PATMAN ACT A. Introduction to the Prima Facie Case 1. Statutory language of Section 2(a) It shall be unlawful for any person engaged in commerce, in the course of such commerce, either directly or indirectly, to discriminate in price between different purchasers of commodities of like grade and quality, where either or any of the purchases involved in such discrimination are in commerce, where such commodities are sold for use, consumption, or resale within the United States or any Territory thereof or the District of Columbia or any insular possession or other place under the jurisdiction of the United States, and where the effect of such discrimination may be substantially to lessen competition or tend to create a monopoly in any line 5