Menu
Blog Banner Image

The Franchise Memorandum

Resale Price Control Claims Against Contact Lens Maker Survive
Posted in Antitrust

In a rare post-Leegin case involving resale price maintenance, a federal district court in Florida has refused to dismiss claims brought by retailer Costco against its supplier of contact lenses. Costco Wholesale Corp. v. Johnson & Johnson Vision Care, Inc., No. 3:15- cv-00734 (M.D. Fla. Nov. 4, 2015). Costco alleged that Johnson & Johnson forced it to agree to increase its retail contact lens prices to minimum levels. The resale price maintenance policy was alleged to have followed agreements between Johnson & Johnson and eye doctors who sell contact lenses, and between Johnson & Johnson and distributors for the products.

Of special importance to brand owners and franchisors, the court found that a single branded product such as Johnson & Johnson's contact lenses could in-and-of-itself be a relevant market to analyze for antitrust purposes, at least at the pleading stage of the case. Johnson & Johnson's potential harm to competition for the sale of its products, and in the broader contact lens market as a whole, was sufficient to create a claim under Section 1 of the Sherman Antitrust Act. (The court's decision applied a "Rule of Reason" standard for weighing the reasonableness of the manufacturer's required resale pricing agreements, as required under the U.S. Supreme Court's 2007 Leegin decision.) The court found it plausible that an agreement between Johnson & Johnson and eye doctors could have led to the resale price controls, along with Johnson & Johnson's alleged agreements with distributors. Moreover, even the agreement between Costco itself and Johnson & Johnson met the required element of concerted action in restraint of trade. Despite its own acquiescence to the pricing controls, Costco—individually and on behalf of its customers/members—had sufficient "standing" to challenge Johnson & Johnson's pricing requirements.

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