Share on LinkedInShare on LinkedIn

ARTICLE · 14 MARCH 2010

The Third Circuit Clarifies The Robinson-Patman Act’s "Competing Purchaser" Requirement

The Third Circuit recently reversed a district court’s judgment in favor of a plaintiff under the federal price discrimination statute, the Robinson-Patman Act (RPA), 15 U.S.C. § 13, concluding that the RPA does not apply where any competition between the plaintiff and the purportedly favored purchaser occurred "before" the allegedly discriminatory sale by the manufacturer took place.

United StatesLitigation, Mediation & Arbitration

Originally published January 2010

The Third Circuit recently reversed a district court's judgment in favor of a plaintiff under the federal price discrimination statute, the Robinson-Patman Act (RPA), 15 U.S.C. § 13, concluding that the RPA does not apply where any competition between the plaintiff and the purportedly favored purchaser occurred before the allegedly discriminatory sale by the manufacturer took place. Feesers, Inc. v. Michael Foods, Inc., Nos. 09-2548, 09- 2952, 09-2993, Slip. Op. at 6 (3d Cir. Jan. 7, 2010). This decision continues the trend in the Third Circuit and other jurisdictions of limiting the RPA to the situations it was "originally intended to target," in which dealers first "purchase products from manufacturers and then compete with other" dealers in the resale of those products. Slip Op. at 29-30. According to the Third Circuit in Feesers, the RPA was never intended to apply in the very different context of bid markets, "where a product

We operate a free-to-view policy, asking only that you register in order to read all of our content. Please login or register to view the rest of this article.

See more popular content from