Introduction Two years ago, the U.S. Supreme Court, in Leegin Creative Leather Products v. PSKS, Inc. [1] , held that minimum resale price agreements were not per se violations of Section 1 of the Sherman Act [2]. Rather, the Court held such agreements should be evaluated under the “rule of reason” under which the “factfinder weighs all of the circumstances” in determining whether an agreement is anticompetitive [3]. The Leegin decision overturned the Court's own ruling from nearly one hundred years earlier which held that minimum resale price agreements were per seillegal [4]. In Leegin, the Court identified four circumstances in which a minimum resale price agreement (also known as a resale price maintenance (“RPM”) agreement) could have anticompetitive effects. Two such circumstances
Share on
|
|
The US DoJ proposes a framework for post-Leegin resale price maintenance
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.
