Distribution Dilemmas: Coping with Change in Distribution Law
Thursday, November 19, 2009
In 2007, the US Supreme Court rewrote the law on distribution restraints in the Leegin case. On October 1 of this year, the Leegin holding was undone in Maryland by a state law, and now Congress is considering undoing it nationwide. Additionally, the Federal Trade Commission is conducting hearings on the subject while state and federal enforcers have announced new initiatives. Meanwhile, the EU is about to adopt new guidelines on distribution restraints that will govern for the next 10 years.
How to cope with all this change? Partners Richard Steuer and Chris Kelly will offer perspective and practical advice for dealing with these unsettled times. Pricing, Internet policies, discount programs, incentive programs, bundling and dealing with customers and suppliers are all more challenging than ever. Hear how companies are confronting these challenges and learn the strategies that enable firms to stay competitive without flirting with legal dilemmas. Change is the norm today, and companies with products to distribute cannot afford to fall behind.
Christopher J. Kelly
Richard M. Steuer
Learn more about Mayer Brown's Antitrust & Competition practice.
Citations to Authorities
- Leegin Creative Leather Prods. v. PSKS, Inc., 551 U.S. 877 (2007).
- Md. Com. Law §11-204.
- Christine Varney, Assistant Attorney General, U.S. Dep't of Justice, Antitrust Division, Remarks as Prepared for the National Association of Attorneys General Columbia Law School State Attorneys General Program: Antitrust Federalism: Enhancing Federal/State Cooperation (Oct. 7, 2009).
- S. 148, 111th Cong. (2009).
- Monsanto Co. v. Spray-Rite Service Corp., 465 U.S. 752 (1984).
- United States v. Colgate & Co., 250 U.S. 300 (1919).
- Worldhomecenter, Inc., v. L.D. Kichler Co., 2007 U.S. Dist. Lexis 22496 (E.D.N.Y. March 28, 2007) (denying defendant's motion to dismiss plaintiff's claim that Internet Minimum Advertised Price policy restricted retail prices; taking plaintiff's allegations as true, "essentially, the advertised price is the retail price for an internet shopper" and restricting advertised prices "has the concomitant effect of restricting retail prices for internet retailers").
2. Exclusive Dealing/Tying
- Masimo Corp. v. Tyco Health Care Group, L.P., No. 07-55960 (9th Cir. Oct. 28, 2009) (mem.).
- Cascade Health Solutions v. PeaceHealth, 515 F.3d 883 (2008).
- Complaint, New York v. Intel Corp., No. 1:09-cv-00827-JJF (D. Del. Nov. 4, 2009).
- Richard Steuer, Bundles of Joy, Antitrust, Spring 2008, at 25.
3. Price Discrimination
- Feesers, Inc. v. Michael Foods, Inc., 632 F.Supp.2d 414 (M.D. Pa. 2009).