The New York Southern District Court holds that enforcement of a Minimum Advertised Price (MAP) policy against Internet retailers does not amount to minimum resale price maintenance (Worldhomecenter.com / Franke Consumer Products)

Courts May Try to Harmonize Federal and State Law on the Legality of Resale Price Maintenance* Ever since the United States Supreme Court ruled in Leegin Creative Leather Products, Inc. v. PSKS, Inc., 551 U.S. 877 (2007), that resale price maintenance (i.e., agreements to set minimum resale prices) (RPM) is not per se illegal under federal antitrust law, businesses have faced the uncertain question of whether RPM could still be deemed per se unlawful under state antitrust laws. In particular, the attorneys general of a number of states – most prominently New York and California – have taken the position that their state antitrust statutes

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

Quotation

Barbara T. Sicalides, Barak A. Bassman, The New York Southern District Court holds that enforcement of a Minimum Advertised Price (MAP) policy against Internet retailers does not amount to minimum resale price maintenance (Worldhomecenter.com / Franke Consumer Products), 22 June 2011, e-Competitions June 2011, Art. N° 50576

Visites 304

All issues

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