| Litigants: | Weyerhaeuser Company v. Ross-Simmons Hardwood Lumber Company |
| Arguedate: | November 28 |
| Argueyear: | 2006 |
| Decidedate: | February 20 |
| Decideyear: | 2007 |
| Fullname: | Weyerhaeuser Company, Petitioner v. Ross-Simmons Hardwood Lumber Company, Inc. |
| Usvol: | 549 |
| Uspage: | 312 |
| Parallelcitations: | 127 S. Ct. 1069; 166 L. Ed. 2d 911; 2007 U.S. LEXIS 1333; 75 U.S.L.W. 4091; 2007-1 Trade Cas. (CCH) ¶ 75,601; 20 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. S 77 |
| Majority: | Thomas |
| Joinmajority: | unanimous |
Weyerhaeuser Company v. Ross-Simmons Hardwood Lumber Company, 549 U.S. 312 (2007), was a United States Supreme Court case related to antitrust regulations.
Both parties operated sawmills; Ross-Simmons was driven out of business by what it complained was Weyerhaeuser's attempted monopsonization of the market. The theory was "predatory buying": a purchaser buys so much of a given raw material that it drives up the price and thereby excludes less pecunious rivals who depend on the same raw material.
The Supreme Court rejected the theory on a rule of reason analysis, noting that there are any number of legitimate business strategies that involve buying large quantities of raw materials. A plaintiff alleging predatory buying must therefore prove—and Ross-Simmons had not—that the defendant caused the price to rise, and that the defendant is likely to recoup the costs incurred in such a scheme.
The Court's decision symmetrized its case law, with Weyerhaeuser and Brooke Group Ltd. v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp. applying identical standards to predatory buying and predatory selling claims respectively.