The US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit finds that the plaintiff failed to meet its burden to show that the revenue-sharing was obviously anticompetitive and expresses no opinion on the legality of the arrangement under the rule of reason (State of California / Safeway)

Grocers’ Revenue-Sharing Deal Deserves More Than a Quick Look, Ninth Circuit Holds* A revenue-sharing agreement among grocery stores, designed to help the stores weather targeted strikes by employees during labor strife, is not shielded from antitrust scrutiny by virtue of the non-statutory labor exemption, but neither is it so obviously anticompetitive to merit condemnation under a "quick-look" analysis, an en banc panel of the U.S. Ninth Circuit Court recently held. California ex rel. Harris v. Safeway, Inc., No. 08-55671 (9th Cir. July 12, 2011). The case stems from labor negotiations in 2003 involving three large supermarket chains in Southern California (Albertson’s, Ralphs and Vons). These three supermarkets had collective bargaining agreements with a union that were set to

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.