Opinion ID: 3016862
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Efficacy of Dealer Criterion 6

Text: Although the parties to the sales transactions consider the exclusionary arrangements to be agreements, they are technically only a series of independent sales. Dentsply sells teeth to the dealers on an individual transaction basis and essentially the arrangement is “at-will.” Nevertheless, the economic elements involved – the large share of the market held by Dentsply and its conduct excluding competing manufacturers – realistically make the arrangements here as effective as those in written contracts. See Monsanto Co. v. Spray-Rite Serv. Corp., 465 U.S. 752, 764 n.9 (1984). Given the circumstances present in this case, there is no ground to doubt the effectiveness of the exclusive dealing arrangement. In LePage’s, 324 F.3d at 162, we concluded that 3M’s aggressive rebate program damaged LePage’s ability to 25 compete and thereby harmed competition itself. LePage’s simply could not match the discounts that 3M provided. LePage’s, 324 F.3d at 161. Similarly, in this case, in spite of the legal ease with which the relationship can be terminated, the dealers have a strong economic incentive to continue carrying Dentsply’s teeth. Dealer Criterion 6 is not edentulous.2