Possible impact of enforcement of old law

[Johnoly]

As I understand, a law was passed many decades ago requiring manufacturers to sell their products to all retailers at the same price, regardless of the size of the retailers.

That is correct. but quantity discounts are perfectly legal as long as they are "offered" to everyone. If you buy 5 units, the price per unit is 'offered' at a cheaper price than committing to only 1 unit. A case of 24 cans is cheaper than a single can and that's legal. But where it gets sketchy is 'advertising discounts'. That's where the games get played and it shows up as a credit on a separate line at the bottom of the invoice. Most big companies are very good about staying within the rules while still offering multiple discounts. And even if they do get caught doing something bad, well they just fire the local rep and blame it on a one-time occurrence that was not corporate authorized. That happens ALOT!

 

[wnissen]

I’m surprised to see this is a thing because (not to get into politics in the least) the Supreme Court ruled several years ago that manufacturers could enforce mandatory retail prices. Previously they could cut off stores selling below retail, but could not make it a condition of sale.

 

[GiraffeMarineSalvage]

I’m surprised to see this is a thing because (not to get into politics in the least) the Supreme Court ruled several years ago that manufacturers could enforce mandatory retail prices. Previously they could cut off stores selling below retail, but could not make it a condition of sale.

Like all matters of law (disclaimer I'm not a lawyer and definitely not giving legal advice...) it's a bit more complicated than that: based upon my limited understanding under Leegin Creative Leather Products, Inc. v. PSKS, Inc., 551 U.S. 877 (2007), it is still theoretically considered illegal when the effect is to "unreasonably" restrain trade (but the bigger issue would be due to the Iqbal/Twombly "plausibility pleading standard" all plaintiffs now are stuck trying to prove the plausibility of their case at the initial pleadings stage prior to any discovery instead of after discovery and the admission of evidence which may only be in the possession of the defendants.. The more outrageous defendants' conduct the less plausible and therefore due to Iqbal/Twombly it is now easier for defendants to get away with more outrageous conduct than less outrageous conduct ).

 

[100days-a-year]

We would then live under a very different socioeconomic system...
There's nothing wrong with passing on savings due to consolidated shipping but realistically Coke and Pepsi (and insurance companies like State Farm, and many other big businesses...) use their sheer size to do anything and everything they can to create an unfair advantage in their respective industries :-/

Apple, Amazon, Disney, Walmart, Target, Microsoft, any given politician........