Robinson–Patman Act Explained

The Robinson–Patman Act (RPA) of 1936 (or Anti-Price Discrimination Act, Pub. L. No. 74-692, 49 Stat. 1526 (codified at)) is a United States federal law that prohibits anticompetitive practices by producers, specifically price discrimination.

Co-sponsored by Senator Joseph T. Robinson (D-AR) and Representative Wright Patman (D-TX), it was designed to protect small retail shops against competition from chain stores by fixing a minimum price for retail products. Specifically, the law prevents suppliers, wholesalers, or manufacturers from supplying goods to “preferred customers“ at a reduced price. It also prevents coercing suppliers into restrictions as to whom they can and can't sell goods.[1] [2]

The law grew out of practices in which chain stores were allowed to purchase goods at lower prices than other retailers. The amendment to the Clayton Antitrust Act prevented unfair price discrimination for the first time by requiring a seller to offer the same price terms to customers at a given level of trade. The RPA provided for criminal penalties but contained a specific exemption for "cooperative associations".[3] Enforcement of the RPA's provisions began to decline beginning in the 1980s.

Contents

In general, the Act prohibits sales that discriminate in price on the sale of goods to equally-situated distributors when the effect of such sales is to reduce competition. Price means net price and includes all compensation paid. The seller may not throw in additional goods or services. Injured parties or the US government may bring an action under the Act.

Liability under section 2(a) of the Act (with criminal sanctions) may arise on sales that involve:

"It shall be unlawful for any person engaged in commerce, in the course of such commerce, knowingly to induce or receive a discrimination in price which is prohibited by this section."

Defenses to the Act include cost justification and matching the price of a competitor. In practice, the "harm to competition" requirement often is the make-or-break point.

Sales to Military Exchanges and Commissaries are exempt from the act.[4]

The United States Department of Justice and the Federal Trade Commission have joint responsibilities for enforcement of the antitrust laws. Though the FTC has some overlapping responsibilities with the Department of Justice, and although the Robinson–Patman Act is an amendment to the Clayton Act, the Robinson–Patman Act is not widely considered to be in the core area of the antitrust laws. The FTC is active in enforcement of the Robinson–Patman Act and the Department of Justice is not.

This act is one in a category of regulatory enactments that attempt to control price discriminations - or different prices for identical products. Similar prohibitions on discrimination have been found in specialized regulatory systems, such as those relating to transportation and communications.

Such statutes typically have exceptions or restrictions on range of application similar to those set out in the Robinson–Patman Act, to allow for differences in costs of output and distribution and differences in the degree of competition facing a vendor.

Early enforcement of the Robinson–Patman Act was difficult, and even today, it continues to be widely unenforced. That was in part because of its complexity, which limited consumers' ability to understand it. Even for consumers who had the education in antitrust law needed to understand the Robinson–Patman Act, it was unclear how its enforcement could benefit them.[5]

In the late 1960s, in response to industry pressure, federal enforcement of the Robinson–Patman Act ceased for several years.[6] Enforcement of the law was driven largely by private action of individual plaintiffs. This most likely led to a decrease in enforcement because of the difficulty individuals tend to have understanding the Act. In the mid-1970s, there was an unsuccessful attempt to repeal the Act. The Federal Trade Commission revived its use of the Act in the late 1980s, alleging discriminatory pricing against bookstores by publishers,[7] but enforcement has declined again since the 1990s.[8] On the other hand, over 20 states have price discrimination statutes similar to Robinson–Patman.[9]

Volume discounts may violate the act if not all customers are made aware of the availability of the discounts.[10]

Notable cases

Modern enforcement

Enforcement of the RPA has declined since the 1980s.[16] In 2022, FTC commissioner Alvaro Bedoya endorsed a revival of enforcing the RPA in order to curb price discrimination.[17] Commentators have speculated that the FTC under Lina Khan may ramp up enforcement of the RPA in order to curb the unfair use of market power.[18] In April 2024, there was a group of congressmen writing to FTC urging for a revival of the implementation of the Act.[19] [20]

See also

References

  1. Web site: Robinson-Patman Act Definition, Price Discrimination, & Small Businesses. 2021-05-10. Encyclopedia Britannica. en.
  2. Web site: 15 U.S. Code § 13 - Discrimination in price, services, or facilities. 2021-05-10. LII / Legal Information Institute. en.
  3. Shanpo . G.N. . Van Susteren . M.H. . The Special Position, if Any, of Cooperatives under the Robinson-Patman Act . Wisconsin Law Review . 1950 . 119.
  4. Web site: 2013-06-11. Price Discrimination: Robinson-Patman Violations. 2021-05-10. Federal Trade Commission. en.
  5. Phillips-Fein, Kim, and Julian E. Zelizer. What's Good for Business: Business and American Politics since World War II. Oxford: Oxford UP, 2012. Print.
  6. Greenburg . Joshua . Enforcement, Criminal Sanctions and Private Actions . . 1984–1985 . 53 . 1045 . 10 March 2020 .
  7. Web site: Clark. Donald. The Robinson-Patman Act: General Principles, Commission Proceedings, and Selected Issues. Federal Trade Commission. Federal Trade Commission. 18 August 2016. dead. https://web.archive.org/web/20070418110136/http://www.ftc.gov/speeches/other/patman.shtm. 18 April 2007.
  8. Web site: Lipman. Melissa. FTC May Waste Time Updating Price-Bias Guide, Attys Say. Law360. 18 August 2016.
  9. Web site: Robinson–Patman Act . Law Firm of Pepper Hamilton LLP . https://web.archive.org/web/20131029214931/http://www.pepperlaw.com/publications_article.aspx?ArticleKey=318 . 29 October 2013 .
  10. Web site: Disfavored Retailers Turning Up the Volume on Robinson-Patman Litigation. live. https://web.archive.org/web/20200115224954/http://www.klgates.com/disfavored-retailers-turning-up-the-volume-on-robinson-patman-litigation-02-14-2018/. 2020-01-15. 2020-08-09. www.klgates.com. en.
  11. http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=334&invol=37 FindLaw | Cases and Codes
  12. News: Texaco Loses In High Court On Discounts . The New York Times . Linda . Greenhouse . 15 June 1990.
  13. Web site: The Robinson-Patman Act: Annual Update (04/98) . 31 October 2010 . https://web.archive.org/web/20100530094419/http://www.ftc.gov/speeches/other/spring98.shtm . 30 May 2010 . dead .
  14. https://web.archive.org/web/19990819140413/http://www.businessweek.com/bwdaily/dnflash/mar1998/nf80326f.htm Inside The Book Business: Are The Giants Crushing The Little Guys?
  15. http://www.metroactive.com/papers/cruz/01.21.99/bookstores-9903.html MetroActive News & Issues | New Borders Bookstore
  16. Web site: 2022-07-27 . Robinson-Patman Act and what it means for today Legal Blog . 2022-09-28 . Thomson Reuters Law Blog . en-US.
  17. Web site: Nylen . Leah . September 22, 2022 . FTC’s Bedoya Presses for Return to Fairness Over Efficiency . September 24, 2022 . Bloomberg Law . en.
  18. Web site: Papscun . Dan . July 7, 2022 . FTC’s Khan Eyes Old Weapon to Crack Down on New Market Players . 2022-09-28 . Bloomberg Law . en.
  19. News: Marar . Satya . The congressional push to make your groceries more expensive . 7 April 2024 . The Hill . 5 April 2024.
  20. News: Murphy, Blumenthal, Warren, Scanlon, Colleagues Urge FTC To Revive Enforcement Of Robinson-Patman Act To Promote Competition, Lower Food Prices U.S. Senator Chris Murphy of Connecticut . 7 April 2024 . www.murphy.senate.gov . en.

Further reading

External links