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 Leather 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.
Home / unfair competition law
Mar
12
Posted by : Matthew Wild | On : March 12, 2010
Category: Antitrust, Consent Decrees, Per Se Analysis, Resale Price Maintenance, Rule of Reason, Section 1 (Sherman Act), State Antitrust and Consumer Protection Claims, State Attorneys General
Tags:Antitrust, california attorney general, cartwright act, dermaquest, matthew wild, Resale Price Maintenance, sherman act, unfair competition law, wild law group