A federal court in Massachusetts recently dismissed holistic wellness centers’ price discrimination suit against the manufacturer of body sculpting devices initiated after Plaintiffs withdrew from the manufacturer’s minimum-advertised price program (MAP). Mark Breiner DDS, LLC v. BTL Indus., Inc., 2025 WL 1907270 (D. Mass. July 10, 2025).
Mark Breiner DDS, LLC and Emsculpt of CT, LLC (collectively, “Breiner”) alleged that BLT Industries, Inc., a manufacturer of muscle toning and fat burning Emsculpt devices, violated the Robinson-Patman Act and various state laws after BLT doubled the price of consumable components Breiner used for their Emsculpt devices. BLT doubled the prices after Breiner voluntarily withdrew from BLT’s MAP and began selling Emsculpt services at below-MAP prices.
The court granted BLT’s motion to dismiss and dismissed the Robinson-Patman claim because Breiner voluntarily made a business decision to withdraw from the MAP program and, therefore, was no longer entitled to receive the program’s benefits, including discounted pricing on consumable parts. The court held that the fact that Breiner chose to withdraw from the program – and therefore forfeited the discounted prices – did not render BLT’s incentive program an act of illicit price discrimination under the Robinson-Patman Act. Further, the court found that Breiner’s allegations concerning secondary market sales likewise did not establish a Robinson-Patman violation. Breiner alleged that BLT historically failed to enforce contractual restraints, causing the discounted sale of Emsculpt devices on the secondary market with an alleged markdown of 75-90%. Breiner alleged this constituted illegal price discrimination. The court disagreed, dismissing the claim because Breiner did not allege that any of the secondary-market purchasers were BLT’s customers or that BLT favored the unidentified secondary-market purchasers over Breiner, as would be required to establish a Robinson-Patman claim. Accordingly, the court dismissed the lone federal Robinson-Patman claim and declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state-law claims.