House Acts To Restore Per Se Rule Against Resale Price Maintenance Overruling Recent Supreme Court Decision
By Jason Hicks
On Tuesday, July 30, 2009, the House Judiciary Courts and Competition Policy Subcommittee approved the Discount Pricing Consumer Protection Act of 2009 (HR 3190). The bill would make all resale price maintenance agreements per se illegal under the Sherman Act, thus overruling the Supreme Court’s decision in Leegin Creative Leather Products v. PSKS, Inc., 127 S.Ct. 2705 (2007).
In Leegin, the Supreme Court held that manufacturers may have very good, pro-competitive reasons for establishing minimum resale prices for their goods. For example, minimum resale prices encourage retailers to invest in advertising and promotion, prevent “free-riding” retailers from undermining the marketing efforts of others, and promote interbrand competition, which, the Supreme Court pointed out, is the purpose of the antitrust laws. Given the benefits of resale price maintenance, the Supreme Court held that such agreements are not per se illegal. Rather, such agreements are unlawful only if they constitute unreasonable restraints of trade under the Rule of Reason (a familiar test in antitrust law).
As a result of the Leegin decision, many manufacturers have changed their distribution policies, and some have adopted resale price maintenance agreements which allow them to more effectively market their products and compete against other brands.
The Discount Pricing Consumer Protection Act, however, would return antitrust law to the days when all such agreements were per se illegal, regardless of their procompetitive benefits. The bill provides: “Any agreement setting a price below which a product or service cannot be sold by a retailer, wholesaler, or distributor shall violate section 1 of the Sherman Act (15 U.S.C. 1).” Those twenty-eight words, if enacted into law, would overrule the Supreme Court’s decision in Leegin and the economic literature upon which the Leegin Court relied. Next the bill will be considered by the full Judiciary Committee, which is headed by Rep. John Conyers (D-MI). Although many bills die in committee, this bill is more likely to be considered because Rep. Conyers is a co-sponsor of the bill.
The Senate is considering its own version of the Discount Pricing Consumer Protection Act. S.B. 148. The Senate bill is sponsored by Senator Herb Kohl (D-WI) whose family founded the eponymous retail department store chain. The Senate bill is also likely to receive committee attention because Senator Kohl is the Chairman of the Antitrust, Competition Policy and Consumer Rights Subcommittee.
In Leegin, the Supreme Court held that manufacturers may have very good, pro-competitive reasons for establishing minimum resale prices for their goods. For example, minimum resale prices encourage retailers to invest in advertising and promotion, prevent “free-riding” retailers from undermining the marketing efforts of others, and promote interbrand competition, which, the Supreme Court pointed out, is the purpose of the antitrust laws. Given the benefits of resale price maintenance, the Supreme Court held that such agreements are not per se illegal. Rather, such agreements are unlawful only if they constitute unreasonable restraints of trade under the Rule of Reason (a familiar test in antitrust law).
As a result of the Leegin decision, many manufacturers have changed their distribution policies, and some have adopted resale price maintenance agreements which allow them to more effectively market their products and compete against other brands.
The Discount Pricing Consumer Protection Act, however, would return antitrust law to the days when all such agreements were per se illegal, regardless of their procompetitive benefits. The bill provides: “Any agreement setting a price below which a product or service cannot be sold by a retailer, wholesaler, or distributor shall violate section 1 of the Sherman Act (15 U.S.C. 1).” Those twenty-eight words, if enacted into law, would overrule the Supreme Court’s decision in Leegin and the economic literature upon which the Leegin Court relied. Next the bill will be considered by the full Judiciary Committee, which is headed by Rep. John Conyers (D-MI). Although many bills die in committee, this bill is more likely to be considered because Rep. Conyers is a co-sponsor of the bill.
The Senate is considering its own version of the Discount Pricing Consumer Protection Act. S.B. 148. The Senate bill is sponsored by Senator Herb Kohl (D-WI) whose family founded the eponymous retail department store chain. The Senate bill is also likely to receive committee attention because Senator Kohl is the Chairman of the Antitrust, Competition Policy and Consumer Rights Subcommittee.
