Chapter V Robinson-Patman Act

• Pages: 107-108

CHAPTER V

ROBINSON-PATMAN ACT

The Requirement of a Difference in Price

In Dahl Automotive Onalaska Inc. v. Ford Motor Co.,1 the court found

that a program that offered dealers an incentive payment on each Lincoln

vehicle sold, but only if the dealer agreed to construct an exclusive

showroom for Lincoln vehicles, was not price discrimination under the

Robinson-Patman Act.2 The court rejected the dealer’s argument that the

incentive payment effectively lowered the price of the vehicle in violation

of Section 2(a) because while “rebates and allowances are essentially free

money that a buyer recieves without a corresponding cost or obligation,”

the incentives offered by Ford “are decidely not free; they are tied to a

dealer’s commitment to spend millions of dollars constructing an

exclusive showroom.”3

The Requirement of Competitive Injury

Secondary Line Injury

In In re Bookends & Beginnings LLC,4 where a retail and online

bookseller brought a putative antitrust class-action lawsuit against

Amazon.com, Inc. and the five largest book publishers in the United States

alleging secondary-line price discrimination, the magistrate judge

recommended granting defendants’ motion to dismiss because the Morton

Salt5 inference of competitive injury was inappropriate when the actual

discount to the allegedly favored purchaser was not known or alleged and

there was no other factual support for the complaint’s “conclusory

allegation” that the discount was “steep,” “huge,” or “substantial.”6

1. 588 F. Supp. 3d 929 (W.D. Wis. 2022).

2. Id. at 937-38.

3. Id. at 938.

4. 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 152596 (S.D.N.Y. 2022).

5. FTC v. Morton Salt Co., 334 U.S. 37 (1983).

6. Id. at *67.