Such actions can be filed seeking treble damages. Class action certifications in Robinson-Patman matters are generally denied by the courts. Where common issues of fact or law are to be found they are more likely to be found in a particular geographic area that is of more local than regional or national proportions. The FTC Act does not specifically define this term, but the courts have interpreted it fairly broadly. A clearcut violation of any of the antitrust laws, including the Robinson-Patman Act, may also be found unlawful under Section 5 of the FTC Act as an unfair method of competition.
Buyers are guilty only if they receive a discriminatorily low price.
Another law that can come into play in a price discrimination case is Section 2 of the Sherman Act. Courts have long recognized that predatory pricing may be a means of obtaining or maintaining a monopoly position in violation of that section. In addition to these statutory claims, a Robinson-Patman case may also involve common law issues such as breach of contract, or private unfair competition claims. The basic thrust of the Robinson-Patman Act is to prohibit sellers from charging different prices to competing customers for the same product. Where manufacturers sell the same equipment to an independent distributor at a higher price than it sells the same equipment to a major oil company that will resell that product at the same level of competition, price discrimination may be established.