Source: http://antitrustcommentary.com/?cat=150
Timestamp: 2019-04-26 07:41:36+00:00

Document:
Overruling the recent Kansas Supreme Court decision in O’Brien v. Leegin Creative Leather Products, Inc. discussed in the May 8, 2012 Post, the Kansas legislature has mandated that resale price maintenance is subject to the rule of reason. This legislation is remarkable in light of all the uproar over the United States Supreme Court’s decision in Leegin Creative Leather Products v. PSKS, 127 S.Ct. 2705 (2007), that made resale price maintenance subject to the rule of reason. For example, as discussed in previous posts of May 4, 2009 and October 29, 2009, the Maryland legislature enacted the first Leegin repealer statute making resale price maintenance per se unlawful and 41 state attorneys general have urged Congress to repeal Leegin.
On May 4, 2012, the Kansas Supreme Court held in O’Brien v. Leegin Creative Leather Products, Inc. that resale price maintenance is a per se offense of the Kansas antitrust law. The Kansas statute differs meaningfully (with express prohibitions on agreements involving the pricing of goods) from the general language of § 1 of the Sherman Act (prohibiting only agreements in “restraint of trade”). As noted in earlier Posts, the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in, Leegin Creative Leather Prods., Inc. v. PSKS, Inc., 551 U.S. 877 (2007), which held that resale price maintenance is subject to the rule of reason under §1 of the Sherman Act, has not been favorably received. Congress has proposed legislative repeal; several state attorneys’ general have obtained consent decrees prohibiting such practices as per se offenses of their state antitrust laws; and Maryland repealed Leegin. It remains to be seen how long Leegin survives. Companies should remain cautious in imposing RPM programs because they may still face substantial liability under state law.
Resale price maintenance liability remains alive even after Leegin Creative Leather Products v. PSKS, 127 S.Ct. 2705 (2007) (holding that rpm agreements are now subject to the rule of reason). On June 17, 2008, the Third Circuit held that a Mack truck franchisee raised a triable issue of fact under the rule of reason concerning an alleged resale price maintenance scheme. Toledo Mack Sales & Serv. v. Mack Trucks, No. 07-1811, 2008 WL 2420729 (3d Cir. June 17, 2008). In particular, the Court held that the plaintiff came forward with sufficient evidence to show that the existence of an agreement between the manufacturer and dealers to stop discounting and the agreement may have caused prices to increase violating the rule of reason. Relying on Monsanto v. Spray-Rite Serv., 465 U.S. 752 (1984), the dealers’ frequent input and complaints about discounting were sufficient to raise a triable question over the existence of an agreement. With respect to the showing under the rule of reason, the dealer established that the manufacturer had sufficient power in the engine placed in front of the cab and the low cab over engine truck markets to control prices in those markets. Accordingly, its efforts to reduce intrabrand competition could have affected interbrand competition and caused prices to increase in the relevant markets. The Third Circuit rejected the R-P- Act claim holding that the statute does not apply to custom made goods of the type that were at issue in this case. The Third Circuit also rejected the statute of limitations defense holding that the plaintiff could rely on evidence of overt acts that took place before the limitations period to prove the existence of the conspiracy during the limitations period. Counsel must be careful in advising their clients about resale price maintenance. In addition to liability that can arise as demonstrated by this decision, state attorneys general remain active in this area. See March 14 and May 23, 2008 Posts.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 § 1
 v. 
 §1
 v. 
 v. 
 v.