Document: 344 U.S. 392 73 S.Ct. 361 97 L.Ed. 426 FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSIONv.MOTION PICTURE ADVERTISING SERVICE CO., Inc. No. 75. Argued Dec. 8, 1952. Decided Feb. 2, 1953. Rehearing Denied March 9, See 345 914, 638. Mr. James L. Morrisson, Chicago, Ill., for petitioner. Louis Rosen, New Orleans, La., respondent. Justice DOUGLAS delivered the opinion of Court. 1 Respondent is a producer and distributor advertising motion pictures which depict describe commodities offered sale by commercial establishments. contracts with theatre owners display these films ships from its place business in Louisiana to theatres twenty-seven states District Columbia. These run terms up five years, majority being one or two years. A substantial number them contains provision that owner will only furnished respondent, exception charities governmental organizations, announcements coming attractions. three other companies same (against proceedings were also brought) together had exclusive arrangements approximately three-fourths total United States compensation. almost 40 percent area where it operates. 2 The Federal Trade Commission, petitioner, filed complaint charging respondent use 'Unfair methods competition' violation § 5 Commission Act, 38 Stat. 717, 719, 52 111, 15 U.S.C. 45, U.S.C.A. 45. found was competition engaged distributing films, have limited outlets competitors has forced some out because their inability obtain films. It held divided vote are unduly restrictive when they extend periods excess year. accordingly entered cease desist order prohibits entering into any such contract grants an privilege more than year continuing effect existing longer after date service Commission's order.1 47 F.T.C. 378. Court Appeals reversed, holding not unfair prohibition would be public interest. Cir., 194 F.2d 633. 3 competition', condemned 5(a) confined those illegal at common law Sherman §§ 1—7, note. v. Keppel & Bro., 291 304, 54 423, 78 814. Congress advisedly left concept flexible defined particularity myriad cases field business. Id., pages 310—312, 425—426. clear Act designed supplement bolster Clayton see Beech-Nut Co., 257 441, 453, 42 150, 154, 66 307—to stop incipiency acts practices which, full blown, violate Acts, Fashion Originators' Guild 312 457, 463, 466, 61 703, 706, 707, 85 949, as well condemn 'unfair method violations them. Cement Institute, 333 683, 691, 68 793, 798, 92 1009. 4 present case respondent's unreasonably restrain tend monopoly. Those findings supported evidence. This situation nature market there room newcomers, irrespective practices. quite limited. And due contracts, major foreclosed 75 all available this throughout States. is, we think, plain device sewed so tightly benefit few falls within prohibitions therefore meaning Act. An attack made on part restricts one-year terms. argued practicable. said expenses securing screening do warrant agreements, investment capital justified without assurance year, frequently demand guarantees otherwise refuse exhibit requirements basis argument duration necessary conduct distributors. considered concluded that, although beneficial preferred owners, should restricted term become standard practice continuance undue restraint upon competition, view compelling reasons arrangement.2 precise impact particular trade courts, determine. point becomes 'unfair' often turn exigencies situation, practices, practical question. Certainly cannot say been banned entirety all, exceeded limits allowable judgment, Siegel Co. 327 608, 612, 758, 760, 90 888; 726—727, 815, 816, 1009, limiting year.3 6 between agency governed Curtis Publishing 260 568, 43 210, 67 408. theory furnishes bailment exhibitors exchange personal services undertake perform. But relevant here if Act4 involved. vice tendency develop monopoly involved crucial fact label carries. Masonite Corp., 316 265, 280, 62 1070, 1078, 86 1461. 7 Finally, urges sole issue raised adjudicated former proceeding instituted resulted order. 36 957. put end conspiracy distributors involving agreements. charges no conspiracy; directed against individual plea res judiciata since issues litigated determined earlier one. Cf. Tait Western Maryland R. 289 620, 623, 53 77 1405. 8 Reversed. 9 FRANKFURTER, whom BURTON joins, dissenting. 10 My doubts adequately shown guided criteria dealing under dispelled neither nor explained conclusion 'simplicity clearness' tell us 'what decision means before duty ours whether right wrong.' M., St. P. P.R. 294 499, 510, 511, 55 462, 467, 79 1023. 11 primary concern related analysis industry standards illegality sufficient clarity enable review Although told exhibition three-quarters theaters country accept advertising, indicating how many beyond period finds restrictive. We indication record half year; so, hold unreasonable boils down exclusion something like 1,250 theaters, about 6%, 20,000 country. 10% advertising. 12 Apart uncritical citations brief here,1 merely dogmatic constitutes 'unreasonable restriction competition.' In re Motion Picture Advertising Service 378, 389. Court's echo discussion 'falls Act' because, taken competitors, 75% shut off. reliance concerted action foreclose market, charge course Law. Indeed, must assume complying action. Screen Broadcast While existence course, irrelevant analysis, Standard Oil States, 337 293, 309, 69 1051, 1059, 93 1371, never decided may, absence conspiracy, aggregated support Law violation. id., page 314, 1062. If factors pertinent here, could leave unmentioned simply ask broad unexplained finding violation.2 event, 13 told, true, comprehends designed, doubtless, nip bud does explain Acts. content rest judicial functioning, pronounce way fiat explication. tribunal investigating industry. Analysis light definable Commission. determine correctly applied proper thus exhibited familiarity competitive problems anticipated achieve experience. 727, 14 No called our attention factual similarity, serve shorthand elucidation conclusion. case, supra, relied brief, purpose. brought I shall argue inapplicability language may inapplicable. taking expression 'policy' underlying 5, case. dealt largest seller gasoline market; supply 16% retail purchasing over $57,000,000 worth gasoline. considerations undisclosed advanced indicate percentage off calculated juggling imponderables certainly confidently weigh expert guidance, ought significantly different perhaps important decision, 1062, aggregate volume great significance there. Even apparent differences whose effects need explained. obvious bargaining power vis-a-vis retailer not, far advised, parallel here. Nor apprised proof disregard unlike sales central apparently accounts small theaters' revenues.3 recognized discrepancy pointed retailers might still insist wanted. pressure comes mainly theater, indications provisions. Findings Facts 12, 388. 16 Further, 'exclusive' provisions industry, feasible retailing, access having nominally competing At times little give priority screen space. degree instances represented inadequacy 15% commission paid 'excluded' competitor he permitted show his exclusive. unprofitable local but did find much affected competitors' business, included manufacturer-dealer cooperative national excluded unprofitability short, feature economic equivalent 17 facts meet even antitrust policy engrafted urged allowed ample discretion developing hampering meaning, extension principle new situations based minimum demonstration courts conclude application apart equivocal statements Trial Examiner's report evidence interests specific enforcement area, cf. 427, 814, afforded why strike least, remand adequate explanation interest requires intervention order.4 Klesner, 280 19, 50 1, 74 138. 18 importance bear mind determination scope administrative fact-finding authority matter courts. Gratz, 253 421, 572, 574, 64 993. indicated dissimilar treatment comparable entrusted Interstate Commerce requiring reasonableness rates carriers subject control read making Unlike regulation sector economy enterprises long singled control. range broadly stated concepts moved experience, necessarily easily activity. On hand, gave controls sort began Law—restrictions whole domain enterprise interstate commerce. competition,' widely diverse ad hoc interstices individualized records ascertainment 19 vagueness saved imparting gloss history. Nash 229 373, 33 780, 57 1232. Difficulties inherent uncertainty led particularizations expressed 730. creation continuous process fruition aborted. another thing suggest anything activity unchecked, offend now reached curb power, series beginning Gratz rather final determining what relaxed, unbridled encouraged. 20 am unaware policies maintaining effective Law, amended Robinson-Patman difficult formulate altogether harmonious. Therefore, interpretation Acts constantly construing carry considerable weight solution legal puzzles statutes raise. friend who thinks large. whatever withholding determinations face, least first instance. my views Stark Wickard, 321 288, 311, 559, 571, 88 733. Until chooses shirk leaving Not abstain approving mere say-so fail discharge task implied review. incumbent seek rationalize four toward make them, extent written permits, harmonious body law. attempt, adumbration, aim. 21 Comparable orders each companion cases. Matter Reid H. Ray Film Industries, 326; Alexander 345; Ad Service, Inc., 362. said: 'Under general representative contacts theater space makes conditions respect able prospective advertisers available. contacting estimate amount sell advertisers. Since film four, five, six advertisements, particularly territories canvassed salesmen regular frequent intervals. 'It circumstances agreement suggestion needs co-terminous large delays obtaining agreements executed. rejected contention stating custom completes advertisements required though expiration agreement. consistent construction. prevent completion prevents date. time. party proceeding. binds section unlawful lease, sale, substantially lessens tends create 14, 14. decisions dispose International Salt 332 392, 20, salt industrial purposes, tying attempted patent differences, deserves noted amounted $500,000 patentee. To predicated violation, seems inapplicable Yellow Cab 218, 1560, 91 2010, charged share permanently vertical integration. Pullman D.C., F.Supp. 123, considerable, affirmed equally 330 806, 1263. strongest par. 11, Facts, F.T.C., 387, 'of material assistance permitting own screens deprived showing thereby less go advertising.' Most excluding parties, failure cause failure. bad reasoning, more, adverted formal among inferior quality Report Upon Evidence, 44. establish proceedings, sharply specifically Judge. adverse claim given Rule 52(a) Rules Civil Procedure, 28 Oregon State Med. Soc., 343 326, 332, 72 690, 695. factor significance. entirely context, decisive attempt assess effects, purchasers, discriminatory pricing. Morton 334 37, 49—50, 822, 829—830, 1196. however, probably bears relative operate. take already favor Without consideration issues, pleadings preclude second trial issues. Circumstances justify exercise powers.

Category: 7