On February 23, 2010, the California Attorney General entered into a consent decree with Dermaquest, Inc., which prohibits Dermaquest from engaging in resale price maintenance.  Specifically, the order enjoins Dermaquest from requiring resellers to charge a specified price or to increase their prices.  The action was brought under the Cartwright Act and the Unfair Competition Law.  California now joins Illinois, New York and Michigan (see March 31, 2008 Post) in treating resale price maintenance as a per se offense in violation of its state antitrust law even though such conduct is subject to rule of reason review under section 1 of the Sherman Act after Leegin Creative Lether Prods., Inc. v. PSKS, Inc., 551 U.S. 877 (2007).  This case reinforces the dangers to a manufacture when it implements a resale price maintenance program under the belief that because such conduct might be permissible under the Sherman Act, there is no genuine exposure.  The California complaint and consent decree appear here: Dermaquest Complaint  and Dermaquest Judgment.

In letters dated October 27, 2009 (State AG Letter re HR 3190; State AG Letter re S 148), 41 state attorneys general wrote to Congress asking them to overrule Leegin Creative Leather Product, Inc. v. PSKS, Inc., 551 U.S. 877 (2007).  In Leegin, the Supreme Court held that resale price maintenance — the practice in which a manufacturer requires a retailer to sell its products at a certain price — was subject to the rule of reason.  In doing so, the Court overruled Dr. Miles Medical Co. v. John D. Park & Sons, Co., 220 U.S. 373 (1911), which held that resale maintenance is a per se violation of section 1 of the Sherman Act.  The state attorneys general urge passage of H.R. 3190, which provides that “[a]ny contract, combination, conspiracy or agreement setting a minimum price below which a product or service cannot be sold by a retailer, wholesaler or distributor shall violate section 1 of the Sherman Act.”  As reported in the May 23, 2008 Post, 35 state attorneys general wrote to Congress on May 8, 2008 asking that it enact nearly identical legislation (S. 2261).

Practitioners should know that resale price maintenance can still be a per se violation of state antitrust laws.  As reported in the May 4, 2009 Post, Maryland enacted such a law.  And as reported in the March 31, 2008 Post, the New York, Michigan and Illinois attorneys general brought an action against Herman Miller in which they alleged that Herman Miller’s resale price maintenance program was a per se violation of their state antitrust laws.  Herman Miller entered into a consent decree.

As noted in the June 29, 2009 Post, the Supreme Court granted certiorari to review the Seventh Circuit’s decision in American Needle v. Nat’l Football League.  As explained in the September 4, 2008 Post, American Needle applied the Copperweld doctrine to a sports league’s joint licensing scheme for the first time. In so doing, it affirmed summary judgment in favor of the NFL, its teams and Reebok in an antitrust challenge to an exclusive license of team names and logos to Reebok for use on headwear.  (The decision is linked to the September 4 Post).  As explained in Wild, et al., “Private Equity Groups Under Common Legal Control Constitute a Single Enterprise Under the Antitrust Laws,” 3 NYU Journal of Law and Business 231, 237 and n.31 (attached under articles above), that doctrine treats two or more firms that are under common ownership or have a unity of interest in a common course of action as a single firm incapable of conspiring or otherwise acting collectively under the antitrust laws.

In their amici curiae brief, the government urges reversal.  It argues that the Seventh Circuit extended the Copperweld doctrine in a manner inconsistent with prior precedent — e.g., Texaco Inc. v. Dagher, 547 U.S. 1 (2006), in which the Supreme Court applied the rule of reason to a price-setting joint venture and NCAA v. Board of Regents, 468 U.S. 85 (1984), in which the Supreme Court applied a “quick look” to a NCAA restriction on each individual college’s right to broadcast their football games.  While the government conceded that the league should be entitled to Copperweld immunity under circumstances in which the teams need to cooperate such as to produce games, the licensing of NFL team logos is not one of them.  Indeed, the government observed that the NFL joint licensing scheme was similar to the type of scheme under review in Broadcast Music, Inc. v. CBS, 441 U.S. 1 (1979).  In BMI, the Supreme Court applied the rule of reason to a joint venture in which composers created a clearinghouse to sell a blanket license to works by more than one of them.   The American Antitrust Institute and Consumer Federation of America also filed a brief as amici curiae urging reversal.  Their brief and the government’s brief are linked below.  DOJ and FTC Brief;  AAI Brief

On August 6, 2009, the New York Times reported that Major League Baseball granted an exclusive license to Topps for baseball cards.  To justify its legality under the antitrust laws, the MLB Executive Vice President is quoted as having relied on the recent Seventh Circuit decision in American Needle v. NFL, under review by the Supreme Court, which upheld a similar licensing scheme implemented by the NFL with respect to headwear (see September 4, 2008, February 24, 2009 and June 29, 2009 Posts).  In that case, the Seventh Circuit held that the NFL was shielded from liability under the Copperweld doctrine.  The Court reasoned that because “the teams share a vital economic interest in collectively promoting all of NFL football,” they could not conspire within the meaning of the antitrust laws when jointly marketing a license that no one time could sell by itself.  MLB’s reliance on American Needle might be unnecessary, however, in light of the Second Circuit’s decision in Major League Baseball Properties, Inc. v. Salvino, Inc., No. 06-1867 (2d Cir. Sept. 12, 2008) (see October 6, 2008 Post).  In that case, the Second Circuit upheld MLB’s exclusive licensing of team logos under the rule of reason.  Although it would be easier to obtain immunity under the Copperweld doctrine than litigate a full blown rule of reason case, the MLB should take comfort in the fact that two circuits would uphold the licensing scheme regardless of which rationale is applied.

Maryland has amended its antitrust law to make resale price maintenance agreements per se illegal, thus overruling Leegin Creative Leather Products v. PSKS, 127 S.Ct. 2705 (2007).  In Leegin, the Supreme Court overruled Dr. Miles Medical Co. v. John D. Park & Sons Co., 220 U. S. 373 (1911), and held that a resale price maintenance agreement in which the manufacturer requires a reseller to sell at a certain price is no longer a per se violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act but instead is subject to rule of reason analysis.  Application of the rule of reason creates a burden on plaintiffs because they have to show that the restraint had an adverse effect on the relevant market and not just the price of the manufacturer’s goods that were subject to restraint.  This abrupt change in the law has been poorly received by state antitrust authorities.  As reported in the May 23, 2008 Post, 35  state attorneys general petitioned Congress to amend the Sherman Act to overrule Leegin.  And as reported in the March 31, 2009 Post, the state attorneys general of New York, Illinois and Michigan obtained a consent decree against Herman Miller in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York for resale price maintenance involving the Aeron chair.  Their position was that their state antitrust law do not recognize the departure by Leegin and still provide that resale price maintenance is a per se offense.

The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit recently held that Major League Baseball’s licensing of team logos was subject to rule of reason review under Section 1 of the Sherman Act.  The court affirmed summary judgment in favor of MLB because the appellant did not challenge the licensing program under that rule.  Major League Baseball Properties, Inc. v. Salvino, Inc., No. 06-1867 (2d Cir. Sept. 12, 2008) (attached MLB Properties v. Salvino).  The baseball clubs give (with a few exceptions) exclusive licensing rights to a single entity.  According to the MLB’s expert Frank Fisher (a world renowned economist), this system offers many efficiencies including allowing MLB licensing to compete better with other sports licensing; offering one-stop shopping to licensees; centralized management on matters such as quality control, intellectual property rights enforcement and negotiations and sales to licensees.  According to Fisher, these efficiencies should result in lower licensing fees.  The appellant had offered an expert report from economist Mr. Louis A. Guth, a Special Consultant for NERA, who disputed these efficiencies and asserted that the MLB licensing entity functioned as a cartel unresponsive to demand.  The Second Circuit affirmed the exclusion of Guth’s report under Daubert v. Merrell Dow because (unlike Fischer’s report) it was unsupported by evidentiary citations or empirical analysis.  The Second Circuit held that the rule of reason and not the per se rule or “quick look” analysis applied because the “arrangement might plausibly be thought to have a net precompetitive effect, or possibly no effect at all on competition.”  Through different reasoning, the Second Circuit in this case reached the same result as the Seventh Circuit did in a challenge to a nearly identical licensing program by the NFL.  See American Needle Inc. v. Nat’l Football League, No. 07-4006, 2008 WL 3822782 (7th Cir. Aug. 18, 2008) discussed in the Post of September 4, 2008.  In that case, the Seventh Circuit held that the NFL teams were incapable of conspiring with themselves under the Copperweld doctrine in these particular circumstances.  In this case, the Second Circuit did not address the Copperweld doctrine, but it did observe that the relevant market should include licenses for other professional sports.  Therefore, it would be unlikely for the MLB’s licensing activities to have an effect on competition.  This case should prove useful for practitioners for its discussion of when the per se rule, rule of reason or quick look analysis applies, the tests used under these analyses and the pitfalls of an inadequate expert report.

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.

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.

The state attorneys general continue to be hostile to the Supreme Court’s decision in Leegin Creative Leather Products, Inc. v. PSKS, Inc., 127 S.Ct. 2705 (2007), which overruled Dr. Miles Medical Co. v. John D. Parke & Sons. Co., 220 U.S. 373 (1911), and made resale price maintenance subject to the rule of reason under Section 1 of the Sherman Act. 35 state attorneys general have written to Congress asking that it pass S. 2261 which would make resale price maintenance a per se violation of Section 1.  State Attorney General Letter; S. 2261.  The March 31, 2008 post reported that the New York, Michigan and Illinois attorneys general obtained a consent decree under state law against Herman Miller for its resale price maintenance scheme. The May 8,2008 post reported that although the FTC modified Nine West’s consent decree that had prohibited resale price maintenance, the FTC reminded Nine West that it was still subject to state restrictions. This most recent letter further confirms that counselors must be cognizant of state law when they advise clients about the legality of resale price maintenance. It would be prudent for clients to act unilaterally and follow the Colgate doctrine rather than rely on Leegin.

On May 14, 2008, the Fifth Circuit rejected North Texas Specialty Physicians’ petition for review of an order that found certain of its activities constituted price-fixing and therefore violated Section 1 of the Sherman Act and Section 5 of the FTC Act. North Texas Specialty Physicians v. FTC, No. 06-60023, 2008 WL 2043040 (5th Cir. May 14, 2008). The Fifth Circuit found that the agreement among the physicians met the commerce requirement because if successful, “the advantages of competition have been adversely affected for out-of-state employers and payors.” The court affirmed the FTC’s use of the “quick look” and the FTC’s holding that the fee setting provisions were unrelated to any of the organization’s procompetitive efficiencies. The court modified one provision in the FTC’s remedial order, however, that prohibited the NTSP from entering into an agreement with its members where they “deal[t with, refuse[d] to deal, or threaten[ed] to refuse to deal with any payor.” As the court observed, “it is difficult to see how the NTSP can both deal and refuse to deal with any payor.” The rest of the order was affirmed.