Leegin held that minimum resale price maintenance is analyzed under the rule of reason rather than per se. Several states retain per se treatment under their own antitrust statutes.
Unilateral pricing policies avoid agreement entirely.
Alternative Names:
RPM|Vertical Price Fixing
Why it Matters?
State law divergence is the practical constraint, since several states including California and Maryland treat minimum resale price maintenance as per se unlawful under state statutes regardless of Leegin, which means a nationwide program faces exposure the federal standard would not create. Unilateral Colgate policies announcing pricing expectations and terminating noncompliant dealers avoid agreement and remain lawful.
Frequently Confused with
Related terms
Frequently asked questions
What is the practical constraint?
What remains clearly lawful?
