OR · 15usc1:x-horizontal-cartel-via-dual-distribution
Even after Leegin placed vertical resale price maintenance under the Rule of Reason, a horizontal cartel among competing retailers or manufacturers Policed via vertical agreements remains per se unlawful.
Exact element source
Every contract, combination in the form of trust or otherwise, or conspiracySource:
docroot/ir/usc/title15.jsonl#title15_sec1; Unicode character offsets [57:133] (end exclusive); SHA-256 9c248965c2c712de1e3f3d52a17be4c90dfdcac5d3f9fea0b7220b164e2c2973.Routes and case patterns
| Route | Definition | Merits instance blocks | Distinct merits cases | Examples (up to 3 cases per count group) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| _procedural accepted; provisional (1 case) | The element is only the occasion for a procedural ruling. | 0 Satisfied 0; not satisfied 0; excluded context 1 | 0 | Used only in non-merits blocks (1). Excluded context examples:Leegin Creative Leather Products, Inc. v. PSKS, Inc. — 551 U.S. 877 (2007) · Supreme Court of the United States · 2007 — not reached · basis not recorded (15usc1: author: Fable · not independently reviewed) · background/procedural · not counted |
How courts decided this element
| Case | Element | Holding and scope | Pattern | Exact source quotations |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Leegin Creative Leather Products, Inc. v. PSKS, Inc. — 551 U.S. 877 (2007) · Supreme Court of the United States · 2007 — not reached (15usc1: author: Fable · not independently reviewed) | Horizontal cartel / hub-and-spoke conspiracy operating through vertical or dual-distribution arrangements | not_reached Excluded from merits counts background / procedural party: PSKS, Inc., d/b/a Kay's Kloset (terminated discounting retailer; plaintiff, respondent); theory: horizontal cartel among competing retailers: the manufacturer's owner is also a competing retailer; subject: party=PSKS, Inc., d/b/a Kay's Kloset (terminated discounting retailer; plaintiff, respondent); theory=horizontal cartel among competing retailers: the manufacturer's owner is also a competing retailer Alternative horizontal theory (manufacturer's president owns competing retail stores) raised for the first time in the Supreme Court; a second route to the agreement/per-se elements, not considered because not raised below. | not-preserved/manufacturer-owner-also-retailer | Leegin’s president, Jerry Kohl, also has an interest in about 70 stores that sell Brighton products.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/us_551.jsonl#/us/551/0877-01; Unicode character offsets [1405:1505] (end exclusive); SHA-256 6dc0b5ffec12ec474152aa4935b052042835b8bd19a739a908c122c1a115df37.Respondent did not make this allegation in the lower courts, and we do not consider it here.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/us_551.jsonl#/us/551/0877-01; Unicode character offsets [52949:53041] (end exclusive); SHA-256 6dc0b5ffec12ec474152aa4935b052042835b8bd19a739a908c122c1a115df37. |
Court interpretations
interpretation
If there is evidence retailers were the impetus for a vertical price restraint, there is a greater likelihood that the restraint facilitates a retailer cartel or supports a dominant, inefficient retailer.
Leegin Creative Leather Products, Inc. v. PSKS, Inc. — 551 U.S. 877 (2007) · Supreme Court of the United States · 2007 (15usc1: author: Fable · not independently reviewed)
If there is evidence retailers were the impetus for a vertical price restraint, there is a greater likelihood that the restraint facilitates a retailer cartel or supports a dominant, inefficient retailer.Source:
docroot/ir/caselaw/us_551.jsonl#/us/551/0877-01; Unicode character offsets [32676:32880] (end exclusive); SHA-256 6dc0b5ffec12ec474152aa4935b052042835b8bd19a739a908c122c1a115df37.Even after Leegin placed vertical resale price maintenance under the Rule of Reason, a horizontal cartel among competing retailers or manufacturers Policed via vertical agreements remains per se unlawful.