An Ohio federal court recently dismissed a franchisee’s claim against its franchisor for illegal tying in violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act. Arnold v. Petland, Inc., No. 2:07-cv-01307 (S.D. Ohio Mar. 26, 2009). The Arnolds, owners of a failed Petland franchise, claimed, after being supplied with sick puppies and stale pet food, that Petland illegally tied the purchase of puppies and pet food from Petland’s preferred supplier to the ownership of the Petland franchise. Noting that dismissal of a tying claim is appropriate where a plaintiff has improperly limited its definition of a product market for the tying product to exclude potential substitutes, the district court held that the Arnold’s alleged relevant market, “the market for pet store franchises,” was unreasonably narrow in light of “equivalent investment opportunities….”
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.
RSS Feed