The Robinson-Patman Act and Consumer Welfare: Has Volvo Reconciled Them?
John B. Kirkwood
Seattle University School of Law
Seattle University Law Review, Vol. 30, p. 349, 2007
This article analyzes the Supreme Court’s most recent Robinson-Patman case, Volvo v. Reeder-Simco, and shows that decision did not reconcile the Robinson-Patman Act with the other antitrust laws. In particular, it did not require a plaintiff in a secondary line R-P case (a case challenging discrimination among customers) to show that the discrimination reduced market wide competition. While the Court emphasized that the challenged conduct benefited competition and consumers, it offered this point as a reason to reject the expansive interpretation of the Act the plaintiff sought. Had the plaintiff brought a perfectly traditional secondary line case, the opinion indicates the Court would have analyzed it in the traditional way. The article bolsters this conclusion with discussions of the goals of the antitrust laws and the legal and economic significance of buyer power.
Number of Pages in PDF File: 27Accepted Paper Series
Date posted: June 9, 2009
© 2013 Social Science Electronic Publishing, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
This page was processed by apollo2 in 0.625 seconds