Vertical Price Restraints After Leegin This article analyzes the Supreme Court’s decision in Leegin Creative Leather Products, Inc v. PSKS, Inc., 127 S. Ct. 2705 (2007). The article traces the history of vertical price fixing and acknowledges that the case law has been confusing and inconsistent and that there are good reasons to treat vertical price restraints differently from horizontal price restraints. Nevertheless, it argues that the Leegin decision was both wrong on the law and bad policy and that resale price maintenance remains a significant threat to competition. At the same time, it rejects a restoration of the per se rule against r/p/m through legislation or otherwise and proposes that r/p/m be treated as presumptively unlawful with the burden on the defendant to adduce factual (as opposed to theoretical) evidence of procompetitive benefits that outweigh anticompetitive effects.
Available at: http://works.bepress.com/edward_cavanagh/2/