Resale price maintenance liability remains alive even after Leegin Creative Leather Products v. PSKS, 127 S.Ct. 2705 (2007) (holding that rpm agreements are now subject to the rule of reason). On June 17, 2008, the Third Circuit held that a Mack truck franchisee raised a triable issue of fact under the rule of reason concerning an alleged resale price maintenance scheme. Toledo Mack Sales & Serv. v. Mack Trucks, No. 07-1811, 2008 WL 2420729 (3d Cir. June 17, 2008). In particular, the Court held that the plaintiff came forward with sufficient evidence to show that the existence of an agreement between the manufacturer and dealers to stop discounting and the agreement may have caused prices to increase violating the rule of reason. Relying on Monsanto v. Spray-Rite Serv., 465 U.S. 752 (1984), the dealers’ frequent input and complaints about discounting were sufficient to raise a triable question over the existence of an agreement. With respect to the showing under the rule of reason, the dealer established that the manufacturer had sufficient power in the engine placed in front of the cab and the low cab over engine truck markets to control prices in those markets. Accordingly, its efforts to reduce intrabrand competition could have affected interbrand competition and caused prices to increase in the relevant markets. The Third Circuit rejected the R-P- Act claim holding that the statute does not apply to custom made goods of the type that were at issue in this case. The Third Circuit also rejected the statute of limitations defense holding that the plaintiff could rely on evidence of overt acts that took place before the limitations period to prove the existence of the conspiracy during the limitations period. Counsel must be careful in advising their clients about resale price maintenance. In addition to liability that can arise as demonstrated by this decision, state attorneys general remain active in this area. See March 14 and May 23, 2008 Posts.
Jul
11
Posted by : | On : July 11, 2008
Jul
08
Posted by : | On : July 8, 2008
On June 30, 2008, the First Circuit held that leasees of motor vehicles could not recover under Section 4 of the Clayton Act because they were indirect purchasers of the vehicles. In re New Motor Vehicles Canadian Export Antitrust Litig., No. 07-1990, 2008 WL 2568457 (1st Cir. June 30, 2008). In Illinois Brick Co. v. Illinois, 431 U.S. 720 (1977), the Supreme Court held that only plaintiffs that purchased a product directly from a co-conspirator can recover treble damages under Section 4 of the Clayton Act for a violation of the antitrust laws. In an action brought by leasees of motor vehicles who claimed that the motor vehicle manufacturers had conspired to prevent the sale of motor vehicles in Canada to U.S. consumers for export into the U.S., the First Circuit held that the dealers and not the leasing companies or leasees were the direct purchasers under Illinois Brick. The Court held that because the dealers negotiate the terms of the sale in response to rates set by the leasing companies, the dealers were the direct victims of an antitrust violation by the manufacturers. An interesting question is whether consumers in this case have remedies under state antitrust laws if their claims are based on purchases in Canada. Followers of this litigation are directed to the April 14, 2008 Post discussing the First Circuit’s treatment of class certification.
Jul
07
Posted by : | On : July 7, 2008
On July 1, 2008, the Antitrust Division announced that VISA agreed to rescind a rule that required merchants to give VISA debit cards superior treatment than non-VISA debit transactions from VISA branded cards. Under the rule, VISA allowed merchants to waive the signature and PIN requirements for transactions of less than $25 on VISA debit cards but required the entry of a PIN or a signature on a VISA branded card for a non-VISA debit transaction. With a 70% share of the debit card market, this hurdle may have given VISA an unfair competitive advantage. This practice had become the subject of investigations by the Antitrust Division and the District of Columbia, New York and Ohio attorneys general. It is not surprising that VISA is gun-shy in light of its multi-billion settlements in private antitrust litigation. The Antitrust Division’s press release is attached. DOJ Press Release (VISA)
Jul
02
Posted by : | On : July 2, 2008
According to Reuters, the Antitrust Division has opened an investigation into the proposed revenue sharing agreement between Yahoo and Google. Under the agreement, Yahoo will allow Google to put advertisements on its site in exchange for a share of the revenue. Google and Yahoo are reported to have shares of about 80% and 16% respectively of online advertising revenue. The obvious concern is whether the agreement will reduce the incentives for Google and Yahoo to compete and therefore, violate Section 1 of the Sherman Act. Yahoo may have an incentive to raise its prices knowing that under the agreement, it will share in any lost business to Google. The Antitrust Division reportedly has issued civil investigative demands not just to Google and Yahoo but to many other players in the industry. Although not required to do so, Google and Yahoo agreed not to go forward with their collaboration until the Antitrust Division has an opportunity to review the potential effects on competition. The parties have attempted to shrug-off the investigation as expected. But it certainly is not routine. The Antitrust Division does not take issuance of CIDs lightly.
Jun
30
Posted by : | On : June 30, 2008
According to Reuters, Hewlett Packard Co. received approval today of its $12.6 billion proposed acquisition of Electronic Data Services. Consummation of the transaction would make HP the second largest provider of technology services behind International Business Machines. The transaction is still subject to approval by the EU Competition Commission.
Jun
26
Posted by : | On : June 26, 2008
On June 26, 2008, the Antitrust Division announced that Air France (and KLM Royal Dutch Airlines), Cathay Pacific, Martinair Holland and SAS Cargo Group entered into plea agreements for their participation in the cartel to fix air cargo rates. They agreed to fines of more than $504 million. Air France-KLM agreed to pay $350 million — the second largest fine for an antitrust conviction in U.S. history. Cathay agreed to a $60 million fine; Martinair agreed to a $42 million fine; and SAS agreed to a $52 million fine. So far, the Antitrust Division has obtained $1.27 billion in fines from guilty pleas by cartel participants. This is the largest amount of fines ever imposed as a result of a criminal antitrust investigation. The Antitrust Division’s press release is attached. DOJ Press Release (International Cargo Cartel)
Jun
24
Posted by : | On : June 24, 2008
On June 23, 2008, the Supreme Court granted certiorari in Pacific Bell Telephone Co. v. Linkline Communications, No. 07-512, 2008 WL 2484729 (U.S. June 23, 2008). In a highly unusual public disagreement, the Antitrust Division had filed an amicus curiae supporting certiorari while the FTC had issued a statement opposing certiorari. More on this disagreement is set forth in the June 3, 2008 post.
Jun
21
Posted by : | On : June 21, 2008
On June 9, 2008, the Sixth Circuit rejected a coach’s challenge to the NCAA’s disciplinary rules because he did not allege that the disciplinary rules implicated commercial activity or that he suffered antitrust injury. Bassett v. Nat’l Collegiate Athletic Ass’n, No. 06-5795, 2008 WL 2329755 (6th Cir. June 9, 2008). The Sixth Circuit held that to state a claim under Section 1 of the Sherman Act, “there must be a commercial activity implicated.” Id. at *5. The court further held that “the appropriate inquiry is whether the rule itself is commercial, not whether the entity promulgating the rule is commercial.” Id. (citations omitted). The court then rejected the challenge because the enforcement of disciplinary rules is not a commercial activity. The court also held that plaintiff did not allege antitrust injury. To satisfy this element, the plaintiff had to allege an “anticompetitive effect on the coaching market.” Id. at *7. The coach’s exclusion based on enforcement of the disciplinary rules was insufficient to establish an antitrust injury. It should be noted that the decision contains good dicta explaining when the rule of reason as opposed the per se analysis applies and the nature of the rule of reason analysis.