Dealer Failed To Prove That Favorable Pricing Is Unlawful, 9th Circuit Rules

Dealer Failed To Prove That Favorable Pricing Is Unlawful, 9th Circuit Rules

SAN FRANCISCO - An aftermarket automobile parts dealer did not demonstrate that its competitor knew that the price advantages it received from a distributor resulted from anything other than its large volume of purchases or that an alleged agreement between its competitor and the distributor resulted in anti-competitive harm to the relevant market, the Ninth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals ruled July 19 in affirming summary judgment against the dealer on its Robinson-Patman Act and Sherman Act claims (Gorlick Distribution Centers, LLC v. Car Sound Exhaust Sytem, Inc., et al., No. 10-36083, 9th Cir.; 2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 14635).

Find full version on lexis Advance®
Access this news story on lexis.com®