Weighing the Procompetitive and Anticompetitive Effects of RPM Under the Rule of Reason

25 March 2019
By Dr. Stephanie Demperio and Dr. Emily Walden

In 2007, the Supreme Court ruled that minimum resale price maintenance (RPM)—an agreement between a manufacturer and retailers to sell the manufacturer’s product at or above a specified retail price—be evaluated under the rule of reason. However, in the years since, case law has offered little guidance on how to apply this in practice.

In this article, published in Volume 19, Issue 2, of The Price Point, Senior Consultant Dr. Stephanie Demperio and Consultant Dr. Emily Walden discuss the potential procompetitive benefits and anticompetitive harms contributing to the debate over RPM, and outline methods to evaluate these effects in practice using case-specific facts.

©2018 by the American Bar Association. This excerpted chapter is posted here with with permission. All rights reserved. This information or any or portion thereof may not be copied or disseminated in any form or by any means or stored in an electronic database or retrieval system without the express written consent of the American Bar Association.