Court Opinion

ID: 9460676
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-04 21:57:26.273472+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:36:43.958216
License: Public Domain

HOLLOWAY, Circuit Judge
(concurring in part and dissenting in part):
I fully concur in the well-reasoned opinion of the court in upholding paragraphs 1 through 11 of the Commission’s order and disagree only as to the setting aside of paragraphs 12 and 13.
It is true that paragraphs 12 and 13 require a substantial change in the contract provisions on termination of distributorships. However, the Commission has found that it is abundantly clear that Coors representatives have used the explicit or implicit threat of speedy termination in efforts to force acquiescence of its distributors in anti-competitive behavior. We are agreed that there is substantial evidence in the record to support the finding.
The Commission has wide discretion in its choice of a remedy deemed adequate to cope with unlawful practices in *1190this area of trade and commerce. See Siegel Co. v. FTC, 327 U.S. 608, 611, 66 S.Ct. 758, 90 L.Ed. 888. The courts interfere only where there is no reasonable relation between the remedy and the violation. Atlantic Refining Co. v. FTC, 381 U.S. 357, 377, 85 S.Ct. 1498, 14 L.Ed.2d 443. And orders affecting contractual relationships have been upheld where unlawful practices involved similar subtle pressures and threats of termination of dealers’ leases. Id. at 374-375.
On this record and the findings made I would uphold as reasonable the Commission’s choice of a remedy to cope with the unlawful practices.