Communications & Associations Among Competitors: Price Fixing & Boycotts
Mondaq Business Briefing › United States Law Articles in English (2002)
Linked as:
Extract
Communications & Associations Among Competitors: Price Fixing & Boycotts
This article originally appeared in the 2000 edition of The Antitrust Review of the Americas.
Agreements among competitors to fix prices or to form a boycott are unlawful under the Sherman Act § 1. Not all communications among competitors that involve pricing or joint actions that affect competition are necessarily unlawful. Recent court decisions examine the facts and circumstances that determine the difference between lawful and unlawful competitor interaction.Price FixingThe antitrust laws permit competitors to engage in cooperative behavior, through trade associations and otherwise, so long as they do not reduce competition among themselves. Manufacturers can lawfully meet to discuss common industry concerns, including market conditions and even prices. They can concur in the pricing decisions of others, so long as they reach those decisions independently. When they agree among themselves to fix prices that they charge in U.S. markets, they commit violations of the Sherman Act. United States v. Nippon Paper Industries Co., Inc., 62 F.Supp.2d 173, 1999-1 Trade Cas. ¶ 72,515 (D. Mass. 1999). Eliminating competition by fixing prices or credit terms, or other competitive dimensions of the market, is unlawful. In Re: Brand Name Prescription Drugs Antitrust Litigation, 186 F.3d 781, 1999-2 Trade Cas. ¶72,576 (7th Cir. 1999).Exchanges of current pricing information among competitors frequently lead to well-...See the full content of this document
Sponsored links
This document cites
- U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit - Callahan v. Aev Inc, 182 F.3d 237 (3rd Cir. 1999)
- U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit - Full Draw Productions, a Colorado Corporation, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Easton Sports, Inc., a California Corporation; Papes, Inc., a Kentucky Corporation; Browning Arms Company, a Utah Corporation; Precision Shooting Equipment, a Delaware Corporation; Hoyt U.S.A., Inc., a California Corporation; Bear Archery, Inc., a Delaware Corporation; Aci Consolidated, Inc., a Michigan Corporation; Outtech, Inc., a New Jersey Corporation; Ehlert Publishing Company, a Subsidiary of Affinity Group, Inc.; Archery Manufacturing and Merchants Organization, a Florida Trade Association; Saunders Archery Co., Inc., a Nebraska Corporation; New Archery Products Corporation, an Illinois Corporation; Darton Archery, a Michigan Corporation; and Bemans U.S.A., Inc., a Utah Corporation, Defendants-Appellees.
- U.S. Supreme Court - California Dental Assn. v. FTC, 526 U.S. 756 (1999)
- U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit - Dm Research, Inc., Etc., Plaintiff, Appellant, v. College of American Pathologists and National Committee for Clinical Laboratory Standards, Defendants, Appellees., 170 F.3d 53 (1st Cir. 1999)
- U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit - In Re Brand Name Prescription Drugs Antitrust Litigation., 186 F.3d 781 (7th Cir. 1999)
See other documents that cite the same legislation
