The Court of Appeal of the State of California holds that cross-subsidization through below cost discounts to maximized profits of the core business does not violate Californian unfair practices Act (Dixon Gas / Safeway)

Cross Subsidization For Purpose Of Enhanced Grocery Sales Through Alleged Below Cost Gasoline Discounts Found Not To Violate California Unfair Practices Act* Injury to competing retail fuel stations is non-actionable where market conditions demonstrate that an “incipient antitrust violation” is not imminent. Dixon Gas Club LLC v. Safeway Inc., Case No. A139283 (Court of Appeal 1st Dist. July 20, 2015) (not for publication). Dixon Gas Club LLC brought an action against defendant Safeway Inc. under the California Unfair Practices Act and Unfair Competition Law. To enhance its supermarket grocery sales, Safeway granted its grocery customers discounts at retail service stations with whom it had discount contracts. It thus rewarded purchasers of its grocery products with cents-off on their

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

Author

  • Sheppard Mullin (Los Angeles)

Quotation

Don T. Hibner, The Court of Appeal of the State of California holds that cross-subsidization through below cost discounts to maximized profits of the core business does not violate Californian unfair practices Act (Dixon Gas / Safeway), 20 July 2015, e-Competitions July 2015, Art. N° 75381

Visites 141

All issues

  • Latest News issue 
  • All News issues
  • Latest Special issue 
  • All Special issues