Menu
Blog Banner Image

The Franchise Memorandum

California and New York Have Varied Success in Attacks on Resale Price Controls
Posted in Antitrust

Two states reached different results last month concerning separate resale price controls. First, on January 11, California entered into a consent decree with a cosmetics manufacturer that had been prohibiting discounting by internet dealers. California v. Bioelements, Inc., No. 10011659 (Cal. Sup. Ct. Jan. 11, 2011). Although the manufacturer was required to stop controlling internet discounts, this result was achieved by settlement rather than a court decision, so its weight can be (and is being) questioned. Then, three days later, New York lost its court case against a mattress manufacturer that it had accused of illegally prohibiting certain discounting practices. New York v. Tempur-Pedic Int’l, Inc., No. 400837/10 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. Jan. 14, 2011). The court held that a state statute making resale price contracts “unenforceable” does not make them illegal.

As we have reported ever since the United States Supreme Court’s 2007 decision in Leegin, most of the activity related to resale price controls has been in the form of actions brought under state statutes. These two recent cases continue that trend. Because these matters also arose in the context of manufacturer-dealer relationships, as opposed to business format franchising, we will provide further analysis in our next special “Distribution” edition of The GPMemorandum, to be published in April.

Email LinkedIn Twitter Facebook

The information contained in this post is provided to alert you to legal developments and should not be considered legal advice. It is not intended to and does not create an attorney-client relationship. Specific questions about how this information affects your particular situation should be addressed to one of the individuals listed. No representations or warranties are made with respect to this information, including, without limitation, as to its completeness, timeliness, or accuracy, and Lathrop GPM shall not be liable for any decision made in connection with the information. The choice of a lawyer is an important decision and should not be based solely on advertisements.

About this Publication

The Franchise Memorandum is a collection of postings on summaries of recent legal developments of interest to franchisors brought to you by Lathrop GPM LLP. 

To subscribe to monthly emails for The Franchise Memorandum, please click here

Topics

Archives

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

Blog Authors