Likewise, the plaintiffs herein have failed to plead such facts. Finally, in a footnote, the court observes that the complaint also is deficient in that it failed to plead facts pertaining to injurious effect of the defendant's practice. The California statute at issue is similar to that relied upon by plaintiff herein. This complaint would be deficient in California and likewise it is deficient in Arkansas. Plaintiffs' effort is obviously to promote the interest of certain competitors in the marketplace who are confronted with vigorous price competition.
Price competition is what our national antitrust policy is intended to promote.
State statute mirroring that policy should be interpreted consistent with these principles. Decision-making contrary to these principles could very well run afoul of the Supremacy Clause of the United States Constitution. This court should act now and terminate this case at this stage. Rule 12 provides an appropriate vehicle. This case should be dismissed.