On May 28, 2025, the United States District Court for the Central District of California held that plaintiffs failed to prove that they incurred an antitrust injury flowing from the differential promotional allowances...more
On December 12, 2024, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) filed its first Robinson-Patman Act case in more than 20 years, just as the White House is set to change parties and the balance of power on the FTC will swing...more
In a 3-2 party-line vote (Democratic majority), the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) for the first time in decades filed an action alleging secondary line price discrimination under the Robinson-Patman Act (RPA). The FTC's...more
Price discrimination under the Robinson-Patman Act (RPA) involves charging different prices to competing buyers for the same product. This was the key issue recently before the Ninth Circuit in U.S. Wholesale Outlet &...more
Family-owned wholesalers brought a Robinson-Patman claim against the maker of 5-hour Energy alleging discounts given to Costco amounted to illegal price discrimination. A jury in California rejected the claim after a...more
Last week, a California federal jury concluded that the maker of 5-Hour Energy Drink did not violate federal antitrust law by selling the energy shots to Costco for less than the price charged to its family-owned rivals....more
On October 21, 2019, a jury empaneled by the United States District Court for the Central District of California found that the makers of 5-Hour Energy “shots” did not violate the Robinson-Patman Act (“RPA”) by providing more...more
Last week, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court upheld a $2.6 million fine against beer wholesaler Craft Brewers Guild (a Sheehan family-owned company) for violating anti-price discrimination statutes and commercial...more
Last week, in Connecticut Fine Wine and Spirits LLC v. Seagull, the US Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed a lower court’s motion to dismiss a lawsuit from Total Wine & More challenging parts of Connecticut’s...more
In March of last year, we covered oral argument before the Seventh Circuit in Woodman’s Food Market, Inc. v. Clorox Co. No. 15-3001. We commented that the three-judge panel hearing the case seemed skeptical of the plaintiff’s...more
On August 12, the Seventh Circuit issued its decision in Woodman’s Food Market v. Clorox Co., an appeal that we have been watching closely. The Seventh Circuit’s ruling, which held that product package size is not a...more
Woodman’s Food Market, Inc. v. Clorox Co., No. 15-3001 (7th Cir. August 12, 2016). Clorox Sales Company and Clorox Company produce a range of consumer goods. Clorox sold goods to Plaintiff Woodman’s Food Market, a...more
On August 12, 2016, the Seventh Circuit reversed the district court decision allowing Woodman’s Food Market, Inc.’s (Woodman’s) price discrimination lawsuit against The Clorox Company and The Clorox Sales Company (Clorox) to...more