The Superior Court of the State of California (County of Alameda) challenges minimum resale price maintenance as per se illegal (DermaQuest)

LeVee, Jeffrey A.; Ward, Margaret A.

Previous article The Paris Court of Appeal rejects appeals by companies found to have engaged in vertical practices and abuse of dominance under both EU and national provisions in the online travel sales sector (SNCF / Expedia) Next article The US DOJ seeks a new disgorgement remedy in a civil antitrust case (KeySpan)

23 Feb 2010

The Superior Court of the State of California (County of Alameda) challenges minimum resale price maintenance as per se illegal (DermaQuest)

KEYWORDS

Reference

Superior Court of the State of California County of Alameda, 23 February 2010, Proposed final judgment in California v. DermaQuest

In the 2007 Leegin Creative Leather v. PSKS case, the Supreme Court held that, under the federal antitrust laws, minimum vertical resale price fixing agreements are no longer per se illegal, but governed by the rule of reason, like maximum resale price fixing [1]. Antitrust observers were quick to point out that over 30 states had laws that would continue to treat these kinds of agreements as per se illegal. A February 2010 settlement by the California

Access to this article is restricted to subscribers

Already Subscribed? Sign-in

Access to this article is restricted to subscribers.

Read one article for free

Sign-up to read this article for free and discover our services.

PDF Version

Authors

Jeffrey A. LeVee
Jones Day (Los Angeles)

United States 5 contributions 3482 visits
Margaret A. Ward
Jones Day (San Francisco)

United States 6 contributions 3740 visits

Quotation

Jeffrey A. LeVee, Margaret A. Ward, The Superior Court of the State of California (County of Alameda) challenges minimum resale price maintenance as per se illegal (DermaQuest), 23 February 2010, e-Competitions February 2010, Art. N° 33707

Visites 1818