A recent New York state appeals court decision highlights the need for suppliers to continue exercising caution when adopting and implementing a resale price maintenance policy. On May 8, 2012, the Appellate Division of the New York Supreme Court affirmed a lower court’s decision that Tempur-Pedic International’s (Tempur-Pedic) “Retail Partner Obligations and Advertising Policies” (the Policies) did not violate state law. While a victory for a supplier trying to influence downstream prices for its products, this decision shows suppliers need to continue exercising caution when adopting resale price maintenance policies because of their potentially divergent treatment under federal and state law. Background Tempur-Pedic sells beds and bedding directly and through retailers. In the past,
Share on
|
|
The New York Appellate Court rejects NY Attorney General’s challenge of alleged minimum resale price maintenance (RPM) scheme, holding that New York state statute does not render RPM agreements illegal per se and that restrictions that merely relate to minimum advertised prices do not constitute RPM agreements (Tempur-Pedic)
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.
