Slashdot Mirror


Ban On Price Floors Abandoned, Internet Prices May Rise

paro12 and i_like_spam informed us of a 5-4 decision by the US Supreme Court which abandons a 96-year-old ban on manufacturers and retailers setting price floors for products. The Slashdot community discussed the issue when the case was argued back in March. The ruling means that anti-competitive complaints based on price-fixing will have to be argued case-by-case and will be harder to prove. Discounts and discounters in all venues may be under pressure, with internet sales possibly the hardest hit. "Importantly, this case points a dagger at the heart of the most consumer-friendly aspects of the Internet. The Internet has shifted power to the consumer in two ways. First, it allows consumers to search for and gather information in a cost-effective, efficient manner. Second, it provides a low-cost means of retailing, making it easy for discounters to offer products to the public. This combination squeezes excess profits and inefficiencies out of product prices. Retail price maintenance seeks to short circuit this extremely consumer friendly process. By setting minimum prices, manufacturers can build in excess margins for themselves and for their favored retailers -- prices that consumers have no choice but to pay."

4 of 544 comments (clear)

  1. Re:Let me guess... by i_like_spam · · Score: 5, Informative
    As with all of the recent 5-4 splits, Justice Kennedy was the swing vote.

    Justice Breyer wrote the dissent. Here's a piece:

    That change, other things being equal, may enable (and motivate) more retailers, accounting for a greater percentage of total retail sales volume, to seek resale price maintenance, thereby making it more difficult for price-cutting competitors (perhaps internet retailers) to obtain market share.
  2. Re:Boo Conservative-Majority Supreme Court... by t0rkm3 · · Score: 5, Informative

    That was _the_ eminent domain decision. When that decision was made the Court was weighted to the left. It decided that the gov't can take your land and sell it to the highest bidder in the interest of collecting higher taxes.

    Basically, it allowed large developers to lower their land acquisition costs. If you want too much for your little slice of heaven, the guys with guns will come and take it away. An erosion of one of the most basic rights in Western civilization.

  3. Re:Let me guess... by _Sharp'r_ · · Score: 5, Informative

    I'm trying to figure out if anyone posting (or the summary writer) actually read the decision?

    To summarize:

    Prior to this decision, any price floor set by a manufactorer was automatically considered a violation of anti-trust laws designed to increase competition.

    Apparently there are some specific situations where a price floor would lead to more competition, not less. The specific cases in question included some of those situations. The argument was that since they led to more competition, not less competition, they didn't violate the relevent anti-trust laws.

    Therefore the court took another look and said "You're right, there are some specific situations where a price floor wouldn't violate the law against being anti-competitive, since in those situations it actually leads to more competition". As a result, you may now set a price floor and not have the Feds come after you as long as you are able to show a federal judge that your price floor actually leads to more competition, not less.

    If your price floor leads to less competition, then you still can do it as it's still a violations of the relevent anti-trust laws designed to encourage more competition.

    So, having read that summary, why the hell does anyone think there is anything wrong with that decision? True, now people who can justify their price floor on more competition grounds might have to defend that in court, but how is that worse than those same people being not able to encourage competition that way in the first place?

    For specifics on exactly how a price floor may in rare cases lead to more competition, please read the actual court briefs and decision.

    --
    The party of stupid and the party of evil get together and do something both stupid and evil, then call it bipartisan.
  4. Re:Let me guess... by Rei · · Score: 5, Informative

    Another myth. Malpractice suits account for 0.46% of our total healthcare expenditures. An interesting observation is that Canada, for example, actually pays out more to plaintiffs than US courts do.

    --
    "99 dead duelists of Dios on the wall. 99 dead duelists of Dios! Take one's ring, pass it around..."