High Court Overturns Century-Old Antitrust Rule

The 5 to 4 opinion found that minimum-pricing agreements must be judged on a case-by-case basis. (By Win Mcnamee -- Getty Images)

Network News

X Profile
View More Activity
By Ylan Q. Mui and Robert Barnes
Washington Post Staff Writers
Friday, June 29, 2007

The U.S. Supreme Court yesterday overturned a nearly century-old ruling that prohibited manufacturers from dictating the minimum prices retailers must charge for their goods, saying such agreements could spark competition rather than stifle it.

The 5 to 4 opinion, delivered by Justice Anthony M. Kennedy, found that minimum-pricing requirements by manufacturers do not constitute an automatic violation of the Sherman Antitrust Act. Instead, the agreements must be judged on a case-by-case basis according to a "rule of reason" to determine whether they interfere with market competition.

Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. and Justices Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas and Samuel A. Alito Jr. joined Kennedy in the opinion. Justice Stephen G. Breyer filed a dissenting opinion with Justices John Paul Stevens, David H. Souter and Ruth Bader Ginsburg, arguing that little has changed in the U.S. economy to warrant overruling a decision that has held up since 1911.

The reach of that previous case, Dr. Miles Medical Co. v. John D. Park & Sons Co., has been vast. In his dissent, Breyer described it as being embedded in antitrust law. It has covered the price of perfume, the cost of cars and countless other goods. The decision is why manufacturers can only offer suggested retail prices.

But some free-market economists have argued that Dr. Miles outlived its usefulness and is unnecessary as an antitrust weapon in a modern economy.

Their analysis holds that minimum-resale pricing would ensure retailers make enough profit to provide better service to customers and promote the manufacturer's products. It would eliminate "free riding," in which a consumer might try out the latest tennis racket at the local pro shop and then hit the Internet to find a cheaper price.

Even if minimum-price requirements were to hurt retail competition, free-market economists say it doesn't affect competition among brands. No manufacturer would want to price itself out of business.

In its opinion, the court found that reasoning to be persuasive, at least in some instances.

Mallory Duncan, general counsel for the National Retail Federation, said the justices "put a thumb on the scale in favor of those manufacturers who would like to set resale prices.

"It doesn't guarantee them the right to do it," he said. "But it gives them a little more ammunition."

Consumer groups counter that the restriction has saved shoppers hundreds of billions of dollars over the years. Mark Cooper, director of research for the Consumer Federation of America, said yesterday's ruling will make it more difficult for discounters and small businesses to challenge large manufacturers.

"It gives manufacturers and dealers a weapon to use against discounters, which will raise prices and stifle innovation," he said.


CONTINUED     1        >

More on the Supreme Court

[The Supreme Court]

The Supreme Court

Full coverage of the U.S. Supreme Court, including key cases and nominations to the nation's highest court.

[Guantanamo Prison]

Guantanamo Prison

Full coverage of the U.S. prison in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, including Supreme Court rulings over its legality.

© 2007 The Washington Post Company

Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity