Menu
Blog Banner Image

The Franchise Memorandum

Ohio Federal Court Denies Dismissal of Price Discrimination Claim
Posted in Antitrust

Meanwhile, the United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio denied a car distributor’s motion to dismiss a claim under the RPA. Bedford Nissan, Inc. v. Nissan N. Am., Inc., 2016 WL 6395799 (N.D. Ohio Oct. 28, 2016). After discovering that Nissan North America had given Bernie Moreno, a dealer, cash and sales incentives not offered to all dealers in the area, four other Nissan dealers in the same market sued Nissan, claiming, among other things, that the incentive payments allowed Moreno to purchase and sell Nissan vehicles at substantially lower prices than the plaintiffs.

The court held that the plaintiffs had sufficiently alleged the elements of a claim under the RPA. To succeed on the claim, a plaintiff must show that 1) the sales were made in interstate commerce, 2) the products sold were of like grade and quality, 3) the seller discriminated in price between the purchasers, and 4) the effect of the discrimination may be to injure competition. The court found there was no question that the first two requirements were met and rejected Nissan’s argument that the third requirement was lacking because it did not sell vehicles to Moreno and the plaintiffs at different prices. The court explained that price discrimination can be shown indirectly when one buyer receives something of value (in this case, incentive payments) not offered to other buyers. Finally, the court found that the fourth element was satisfied because an inference could be drawn that a competitor receiving incentive payments over a substantial period of time would cause intra-brand competitive injury.

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