The Robinson–Patman Act: A Look Backwards, a View Forward

• Author: Earl W. Kintner,Joseph P. Bauer
• Published date: 01 September 1986
• Date: 01 September 1986
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1177/0003603X8603100301
• Subject Matter: Article

The

Antitrust

Bulletin/Fall 1986

The Robinson-Patman Act:

alook backwards, a view forward

BY

EARL

W.

KINTNER

*

and

JOSEPH

P.

BAUER

**

IntroductionI

571

••

Ever since its enactment 50 years ago, the Robinson-Patman Act

has been the center

of

intense and continuing controversy- Sup-

porters, acclaiming the act as the "Magna Carta

of

Small Busi-

ness,"? contend that the Robinson-Patman law is important to

ensure fair competition and to stop monopolies in their incip-

iency.

Critics, characterizing the act as "protectionist'" legisla-

Senior Partner,

Arent,

Fox, Kintner,

Plotkin

&Kahn, Washing-

ton,

D.C.;

former

Chairman

and

General Counsel, Federal Trade

Commission

.

Associate

Dean

and

Professor

of

Law,

Notre

Dame

Law School.

This article is based in large

part

on

chapter

31

of

volume 3

of

E.

KINTNER

&J.

BAUER,

FEDERAL

ANTITRUST

LAW,

published in 1983 by

Anderson

Publishing

Co.,

copyright by E.

W.

Kintner.

That

chapter, in

turn,

derived in substantial

part

from

a

draft

by

Mary

Anthony

of

Cleveland,

Ohio,

a

member

of

the

Notre

Dame

Law

School Class

of

1981. Special acknowledgment

and

thanks

are

due her.

2

"[W]hat

surely

must

be

one

of

the

most

controversial statutes in

the

entire

trade

regulation

area-the

Robinson-Patman

Act

of

1936.

Hailed

by its

proponents

and

damned

by its critics, the

Act

continues to

be a source

of

lively

debate

....

" 1

ABA

ANTITRUST

SECTION,

MONO-

GRAPH

No.4,

THE

ROBINSON-PATMAN

ACT:

POLICY

AND

LAW

at vii (1980)

(foreword)

[hereinafter cited as

ABA

MONOGRAPH].

3

H.R.

REP.

No.

1738,

94th

Cong.,

2d Sess. 1 (1975) (quoting Rep.

Henry

Gonzalez).

4See

ABA

MONOGRAPH,

supra note 2, at 2. See also Elias,

Robinson-Patman: Time

for

Rechiseling, 26

MERCER

L.

REV.

689, 689

(1975) (act is

"thoroughly

discredited").

572 The antitrust bulletin

tion, argue that Robinson-Patman attempts to protect inefficient

competitors while stifling vigorous competition.

Even with

half

acentury

of

experience, the fundamental

questions-whether

the Robinson-Patman Act is helpful or

harmful to American economic goals, and whether the act should

be strengthened, restricted in scope, or repealed

altogether-re-

main unanswered. These issues have been addressed in numerous

articles by legal scholars, practicing attorneys, economists, and

businessmen.' Anumber of groups have examined and criticized

5There are literally hundreds

of

pieces praising, criticizing,

and

analyzing the act.

For

arepresentative sample, see ABA

MONOGRAPH,

supra note 2(containing extensive citation to other works); R.

BORK,

THE

ANTITRUST

PARADOX

382-401 (1978); C.

EDWARDS,

THE

PRICE

DISCRIMINATION

LAW

617-57 (1959); C.

KAYSEN

&D.

TURNER,

ANTITRUST

POLIcy-AN

ECONOMIC

AND

LEGAL

ANALYSIS

179-88 (1959); F.

ROWE,

PRICE

DISCRIMINATION

UNDER

THE

ROBINSON-PATMAN

ACT

534-56 (1962);

Adelman, The Consistency

of

the Robinson-Patman

Act,

6

STAN.

L.

REV.

3 (1935); Adelman, Price Discrimination as Treatedin the Attorney

General's Report, 104 U. PA. L.

REV.

222 (1955); Austern, Difficult and

Diffusive Decades:

An

Historical Plaint

About

the Robinson-Patman

Act,

41 N.Y.U. L.

REV.

897 (1966); Backman,

An

Economist Looks at

the Robinson-Patman

Act,

17

ANTITRUST

L.J.

343 (1960); Cohen, Let's

Retain It, 45

ANTITRUST

L.J.

44 (1976); Cooper, Price Discrimination

Law and Economic Efficiency, 75

MICH.

L.

REV.

962 (1977); Elias,

Robinson-Patman: Time

for

Rechiseling, 26

MERCER

L.

REV.

689

(1975); Elman, The Robinson-Patman

Act

and Antitrust Policy: A

Time

for

Reappraisal, 42

WASH.

L.

REV.

1 (1966); Handler, What Is

Wrong With the Antitrust Laws?, 8

ANTITRUST

BULL.

557 (1963);

Hansen, Robinson-Patman Law: A Review and Analysis, 51

FORDHAM

L.

REV.

1113 (1983); Howrey, Pollock &Greenberg, The Robin-

son-Patman Act:

How-Not

Whether-It

Should be Amended, 22

REC.

A.B.

CITY

N.Y. 621 (1967); Keating, Myth, Reality, and the Future

of

Antitrust, 24 ABA

ANTITRUST

SECTION

59 (1964); Kelley, Should the Law

of

Section 2Be Revised?, in

ROBINSON-PATMAN

ACT

SYMR

(CCH) 114

(1948); Kintner, Henneberger &Fleischaker, Reform

of

the

Robinson-Patman Act: A Second Look, 21

ANTITRUST

BULL.

203

(1976); Kirby,

An

Invitation to Heresy: A Proposal

for

Expanding the

Coverage

of

the Robinson-Patman Act, 53

VA.

L.

REV.

654 (1967);

Kuenzel &Schiffres, Making Sense

of

Robinson-Patman: The Need to

Revitalize Its Affirmative Defenses, 62

VA.

L.

REV.

1211 (1976); LaRue,

Recent Judicial Efforts to Reconcile the Robinson-Patman

Act

With

the Sherman

Act,

36

WASH.

&

LEE

L.

REV.

325 (1979); Levi, The

A view forward :573

the act, including anational committee in the Attorney General's

Office," two separate presidential task forces,'

and

the Depart-

Robinson-Patman

Act-Is

It in the Public Interest?, 1ABA

ANTITRUST

SECTION

60 (1952); Liebeler, Let's Repeal It, 45

ANTITRUST

L.J.

18

(1976); Lovett, A Crossroads

for

the Robinson-Patman Act, 45

TULANE

L.

REV.

1 (1970); McAllister, Should Law

of

Section 2Be Revised?, in

ROBINSON-PATMAN

ACT

SYMR

(CCH) 155 (1948); McCollester, Sugges-

tions as to Certain Amendments, in

ROBINSON-PATMAN

ACT

SYMR

(CCH)

133 (1948); MacIntyre &Volhard, Predatory Pricing Legislation-Is It

Necessary?, 14 B.C.

INDUS.

&

COM.

L.

REV.

1 (1972);

Morton

&

Cotton,

Robinson-Patman

Act-Anti-trust

or Anti-Consumer?, 37

MINN.

L.

REV.

227 (1953); Neal, Let's Reform It, 45

ANTITRUST

L.J.

52 (1976);

Oppenheim, Federal Antitrust Legislation: Guideposts to a Revised

National Antitrust Policy, 50

MICH.

L.

REV.

1139, 1198-1210 (1952);

Oppenheim, Should the Robinson-Patman

Act

Be Amended?, in

ROBINSON-PATMAN

ACT

SYMR

(CCH) 141 (1948); Peritz, The Predica-

ment

of

Antitrust Jurisprudence: Economics and the Monopolization

of

Price Discrimination Argument, 84

DUKE

L.J.

125 (1984); Rahl, Anti-

trust Policy in Distribution, 104 V. PA. L.

REV.

185, 207-21 (1955);

Rosner, A

Year

Under the Robinson-Patman

Act,

52

ANTITRUST

L.J.

435

(1983); Ross, Winners and Losers Under the Robinson-Patman

Act,

27

J. L. &

ECON.

243 (1984); Rowe, Price Discrimination, Competition,

and Confusion: Another

Look

at Robinson-Patman, 60

YALE

L.J.

929

(1951); Rowe, The Federal

Trade

Commission's Administration

of

the

Anti-Price Discrimination Law, 64

COLUM.

L.

REV.

415 (1964); Shnider-

man, The Impact

of

the Robinson-Patman

Act

on PricingFlexibility, 57

Nw.

V.L.

REV.

173 (1962); Stedman, Twenty-Four

Years

of

the

Robinson-Patman Act, 1960

WIS.

L.

REV.

197 (1960);

Symposium-

Buyer Liability and Other Current Issues Under the Robinson-Patman

Act,

48

ANTITRUST

L.J.

1673 (1979); Symposium on the Robin-

son-Patman Act: Is It in the Public Interest?, 1ABA

ANTITRUST

SECTION

60 (1952);

Symposium-The

Robinson-Patman Act: 1936-1966, 30

ABA

ANTITRUST

SECTION

1 (1966); Wolfe, Reform or Repeal

of

the

Robinson-Patman

Act-Another

View, 21

ANTITRUST

BULL.

237 (1976);

Comment,

Eine Kleine Juristische Schlummergeschichte, 79

HARV.

L.

REV.

921 (1966).

6

REPORT

OF

ATTORNEY

GENERAL'S

NATIONAL

COMMITTEE

TO

STUDY

THE

ANTITRUST

LAWS

155-221 (1955) [hereinafter cited as

ATT'Y

GEN.

REPORT].

7

REPORT

OF

[PRESIDENT

JOHNSON'S]

WHITE

HOUSE

TASK

FORCE

ON

ANTITRUST

POLICY

(1968), reprinted in IJ.

REPRINTS

ANTITRUST

L. &