A franchisor of window replacement companies and its exclusive approved supplier of windows have successfully avoided claims that the windows sold to franchisees were sold at a discriminatory price under the Robinson-Patman Act and unlawfully tied to the franchisor’s services under the Sherman Act. Bendfeldt v. Window World, Inc., 2017 WL 4274191 (W.D.N.C. Sept. 26, 2017). The plaintiffs entered into a series of license agreements with Window World, Inc. (“WWI”) in the 2000s. Although the plaintiffs were at first required to purchase windows and related materials from a small number of approved suppliers, by the end of the decade, WWI eventually announced that all franchisees would have to buy products from one exclusive supplier of windows. The plaintiffs brought suit under a variety of legal theories when they found out that the franchisor received significant kickbacks from its exclusive supplier.
The North Carolina federal court dismissed the plaintiffs’ Robinson-Patman Act claim, focusing mostly on the plaintiffs’ failure to sufficiently identify any competitor outside the franchise system that received a better price. Because a price discrimination claim requires a favored and disfavored customer that are in actual competition for “the same dollar,” the plaintiffs did not plead a plausible claim by only alleging generally that other customers purchased windows from the supplier at lower prices somewhere “in the Midwest” or “throughout the United States.” Next, the court dismissed the plaintiffs’ allegation that, by naming an exclusive supplier, the franchisor had unlawfully tied the supplier’s windows to the franchisor’s license and business methods, thereby locking them into having to purchase windows at an unfair price. The court noted that the case law on tying arrangements in franchise relationships is “overwhelming” on this issue and that where the alleged market power flows from a contractual obligation in the franchise agreement, rather than the actual dominance of a product or service market, those claims are routinely dismissed. Because the plaintiffs were well aware of the fact that the franchisor had the contractual authority to limit their choice of window suppliers before they entered into a franchise, there was no unlawful tying and the claim was dismissed.
Maisa Frank represents clients in a variety of litigation matters. Whether conducting pre-dispute investigations, navigating litigation, or negotiating resolutions, Maisa’s advice and strategy is vital to clients facing ...
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.