MAP Pricing(Ping/TM/Titleist/Etc)

[pjammer13]

dropping accounts (Merged with Military Discount Thread)

Ping has pulled acounts from 2 store locations in my area. One of the locations was the #1 fitting store in GA! The store owner told me that they and the other store had items priced lower than what Ping would allow. The store that I frequent had some Ping items that were older models priced down and that is what got him I think.

Personally I think it is rediculous that Ping does this. I have heard from people online that this has been done before but this is the first time it has hit near me. I love Ping products, used to be a die hard Ping player before I started HOing but I don't know if I will be buying anything Ping for awhile.

Sorry for the rant.......... just had to vent a little! :drinks:

[nearfall152]

In PING's defense, the retail golf market is as complex as it is cut-throat. They are attempting to protect their prices to stay in business, in a sense. If you compare their market prices to the most notorious company for beating up club prices PING has done a pretty good job. They've brought out G2, G5, and now Rapture (thanks Golfwrx!) in pretty quick succession, yet their price points aren't totally destroyed. TM drivers (along with internet sales) have hurt the entire club market price points.

 

Retail sales is a tough business. Any PING retailer knows this is a real issue.

[matthewk]

They pulled the line from a guy by me for offering a $50 charitable donation for Katrina sufferers for any driver purchase. Since Ping does not allow incentives to buy their items they yanked it.

[pjammer13]

In PING's defense, the retail golf market is as complex as it is cut-throat. They are attempting to protect their prices to stay in business, in a sense. If you compare their market prices to the most notorious company for beating up club prices PING has done a pretty good job. They've brought out G2, G5, and now Rapture (thanks Golfwrx!) in pretty quick succession, yet their price points aren't totally destroyed. TM drivers (along with internet sales) have hurt the entire club market price points.

 

Retail sales is a tough business. Any PING retailer knows this is a real issue.

 

 

I agree to an extent........

 

TM has hurt the business by coming out with a new club twice a week and then having little resale value for the previous model. There are exceptions, I still see some r7 stuff holding value pretty well. I was in no way bashing Ping if it came across that way. Ping has great stuff throughout thier whole lineup. I just think it is a little rediculous to pull thier items from a retailer ( that has to make money also ) for trying to move old products (G2 I belive it was) that Ping will not accept back.

[arkstorm]

Its artificial price inflation, plain and simple. Ping should allow the market to dictate the price. If a market retailer feels they can profit by selling the products for less, it is absurd of Ping to pull them. This is anti captialistic and is truly a violation of the Sherman Act and various states' consumer laws.

[Gxgolfer]

TaylorMade, Titleist, Callaway, etc have MAPP policies. The retailer agrees to the policy when they become a dealer? Is that not a contract? The problem seems to be when you see equipment on ebay at discount prices below MAPP....

 

In similar competitve Retail type markets, I know soft dollars are contributed for advertising. These Ads are submitted to the Corporate Marketing for approval so dollars can be claimed and compliance for advertising. I do think its unfair to ding a dealer for quoting low prices but, there is sometimes two sides to a story.

[arkstorm]

TaylorMade, Titleist, Callaway, etc have MAPP policies. The retailer agrees to the policy when they become a dealer? Is that not a contract? The problem seems to be when you see equipment on ebay at discount prices below MAPP....

 

In similar competitve Retail type markets, I know soft dollars are contributed for advertising. These Ads are submitted to the Corporate Marketing for approval so dollars can be claimed and compliance for advertising. I do think its unfair to ding a dealer for quoting low prices but, there is sometimes two sides to a story.

 

A contract which stipulates terms that are unlawful is never enforceable!

 

The real victim here is the consumer...who pays more because retailers are prevented from discouning down to a non-inflated price. This is textbook retail price fixing. The OEM's you mentioned, Taylormade, Titleist, Callaway, Ping, etc. should be put on notice that there are multi-billion dollar law suits making their way through the courts seeking redress for retail price fixing violations.

[Gxgolfer]

Then the business realites kick in. Will the cost to contest such contract be worth it to the business to prove a point? To be a distributor for a major OEM, I would think the business would go in with eyes wide open and a class action suit should be brought if enough businesses feel slighted....

 

 

I never liked any vendor's policy on MAPP pricing but, its their product that they are trying to sell and the overall market for their products is the market demand. The consumer will ultimately dictate the market as the salesperson or store can switch that consumer to another product. MAPP pricing is a marketing tool used in food, electronics, etc.

[arkstorm]

Then the business realites kick in. Will the cost to contest such contract be worth it to the business to prove a point? To be a distributor for a major OEM, I would think the business would go in with eyes wide open and a class action suit should be brought if enough businesses feel slighted....

 

 

I never liked any vendor's policy on MAPP pricing but, its their product that they are trying to sell and the overall market for their products is the market demand. The consumer will ultimately dictate the market as the salesperson or store can switch that consumer to another product. MAPP pricing is a marketing tool used in food, electronics, etc.

 

Actually, it wouldn't be a contract case at all, and there would be no costs to the retailer to contest these MAPPs because these cases proceed as federal antitrust or state consumer protection class actions and the retailer would simply be a class representative in such a lawsuit.

[Gxgolfer]

That was part of my point, you hear all these stories but, nothing about a class action...

 

The stores sign a dealership agreement to abide by the Vendors rules. What would that be classified as?

 

 

 

Then the business realites kick in. Will the cost to contest such contract be worth it to the business to prove a point? To be a distributor for a major OEM, I would think the business would go in with eyes wide open and a class action suit should be brought if enough businesses feel slighted....

 

 

I never liked any vendor's policy on MAPP pricing but, its their product that they are trying to sell and the overall market for their products is the market demand. The consumer will ultimately dictate the market as the salesperson or store can switch that consumer to another product. MAPP pricing is a marketing tool used in food, electronics, etc.

 

Actually, it wouldn't be a contract case at all, and there would be no costs to the retailer to contest these MAPPs because these cases proceed as federal antitrust or state consumer protection class actions and the retailer would simply be a class representative in such a lawsuit.

[taylormadefan]

TaylorMade, Titleist, Callaway, etc have MAPP policies. The retailer agrees to the policy when they become a dealer? Is that not a contract? The problem seems to be when you see equipment on ebay at discount prices below MAPP....

 

In similar competitve Retail type markets, I know soft dollars are contributed for advertising. These Ads are submitted to the Corporate Marketing for approval so dollars can be claimed and compliance for advertising. I do think its unfair to ding a dealer for quoting low prices but, there is sometimes to sides to a story.

 

A contract which stipulates terms that are unlawful is never enforceable!

 

The real victim here is the consumer...who pays more because retailers are prevented from discouning down to a non-inflated price. This is textbook retail price fixing. The OEM's you mentioned, Taylormade, Titleist, Callaway, Ping, etc. should be put on notice that there are multi-billion dollar law suits making their way through the courts seeking redress for retail price fixing violations.

 

In a strict legal sense, if the OEM's aren't getting together to do so, it's not price fixing. I'd be interested in hearing more about the mulit-billion dollar law suits you're talking about.

 

Ping has every right to dictate the price they want to sell their prodcut as, there's nothing illegal about that at all, nor is it uncapitalistic. If retailers do not agree with their policies, they do not have to sell the clubs, and Ping will be bankrupt in a year.

 

If the price is wrong, the prodcut will not sell. I see more G5's in "real world" players bags than any other OEM's drivers in the Houston area . . .

[arkstorm]

TaylorMade, Titleist, Callaway, etc have MAPP policies. The retailer agrees to the policy when they become a dealer? Is that not a contract? The problem seems to be when you see equipment on ebay at discount prices below MAPP....

 

In similar competitve Retail type markets, I know soft dollars are contributed for advertising. These Ads are submitted to the Corporate Marketing for approval so dollars can be claimed and compliance for advertising. I do think its unfair to ding a dealer for quoting low prices but, there is sometimes to sides to a story.

 

A contract which stipulates terms that are unlawful is never enforceable!

 

The real victim here is the consumer...who pays more because retailers are prevented from discouning down to a non-inflated price. This is textbook retail price fixing. The OEM's you mentioned, Taylormade, Titleist, Callaway, Ping, etc. should be put on notice that there are multi-billion dollar law suits making their way through the courts seeking redress for retail price fixing violations.

In a strict legal sense, if the OEM's aren't getting together to do so, it's not price fixing. I'd be interested in hearing more about the mulit-billion dollar law suits you're talking about.

 

Ping has every right to dictate the price they want to sell their prodcut as, there's nothing illegal about that at all, nor is it uncapitalistic. If retailers do not agree with their policies, they do not have to sell the clubs, and Ping will be bankrupt in a year.

 

If the price is wrong, the prodcut will not sell. I see more G5's in "real world" players bags than any other OEM's drivers in the Houston area . . .

 

Wrong on the law and see e.g. In Re Babies R Us Antitrust Litigation MDL

 

But more importantly, as a manufacturer, Ping does have the right to dictate the price of their product, but only in the wholesale price they charge their ratailers. The unlawful part comes when a manufacturer stiuplates the price further down the stream of commerce. And under the Sherman Act and the various states' consumer protection laws the argument of "The consumer has the option not to buy" as you suggest, is not a recognized defense.

[Gxgolfer]

Is this the case?

 

 

On September 25, 1997, an administrative law judge ("ALJ") of the Federal Trade Commission (the "Commission") issued an Initial Decision against Toys "R" Us, finding that Toys "R" Us had engaged in unfair business practices in violation of Section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission Act. In particular, the ALJ found that Toys "R" Us entered into vertical agreements with, and facilitated horizontal agreements among, various toy manufacturers, including the Company, to restrict the supply of certain toys to warehouse club retailers. Toys "R" Us' appeal of the ALJ's decision is currently pending before the Commission. Although the Company voluntarily produced documents and witnesses in the action, the Company was not named a defendant by the Commission in the action.

 

In the wake of the ALJ's decision, numerous antitrust actions have been filed naming Toys "R" Us, the Company, and certain other toy manufacturers as defendants. All of these actions generally allege that Toys "R" Us orchestrated an illegal conspiracy with various toy manufacturers to improperly cut-off supplies of popular toys to the warehouse clubs and other low margin retailers that compete with Toys "R" Us. The Company has been named as a defendant in twenty-seven private antitrust class actions in federal courts in California, Illinois, Maryland, New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania and Vermont, all of which purport to represent nationwide classes of customers. These actions allege, among other things, violations of the Sherman and Clayton Acts. In addition, on October 2, 1997, the Attorney General of the State of New York ("NYAG") filed an action against Toys "R" Us, the Company, and several other toy manufacturers alleging violations of federal and state antitrust law, on behalf of all persons in the State of New York who purchased toy products from retailers from 1989 to the present. The NYAG complaint has been amended to add as plaintiffs attorneys general from an additional thirty-seven states, the District of Columbia and the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico.

[taylormadefan]

Wrong on the law and see e.g. In Re Babies R Us Antitrust Litigation MDL

 

But more importantly, as a manufacturer, Ping does have the right to dictate the price of their product, but only in the wholesale price they charge their ratailers. The unlawful part comes when a manufacturer stiuplates the price further down the stream of commerce. And under the Sherman Act and the various states' consumer protection laws the argument of "The consumer has the option not to buy" as you suggest, is not a recognized defense.

 

Interesting!

 

I thought I knew a little about the basics of this sort of stuff. Clearly I'm not seeing the whole picture. :drinks:

 

I do have more questions, however. In terms of MAP, Ping isn't alone on this front. Other companies like Apple, Rolex, and others all have the same pricing structure no matter what authorized retailer you go to.

 

Why is it they can have such control over their product at retailers if the Sherman Act and other consmer protection laws are in place?

[Gxgolfer]

I still remember when MAPP, Minimum Advertised Price Policy, came about in electronics. There was a huge uproar and we thought it was/should be illegal. I had thought case law had been established that MAPP was in fact legal but, that was only be unverified sources. I am really curious about this.

[sandy]

In PING's defense, the retail golf market is as complex as it is cut-throat. They are attempting to protect their prices to stay in business, in a sense. If you compare their market prices to the most notorious company for beating up club prices PING has done a pretty good job. They've brought out G2, G5, and now Rapture (thanks Golfwrx!) in pretty quick succession, yet their price points aren't totally destroyed. TM drivers (along with internet sales) have hurt the entire club market price points.

 

Retail sales is a tough business. Any PING retailer knows this is a real issue.

 

AMEN. Mess with Ping and good bye account as it should be. I've heard a zillion excuses about how unforgiving Ping is but every incident the retailer didn't stick to the guidelines (want to lower prices without ping's approval---sayonora). Goes way back to when country club pros used to sell their excess ping equipment to sporting goods stores at the end of the season. Those stores would grind off the serial number but ping would buy many of those sets up and chemically raise the number, trace it to the pro and ping account no more. Strange why you don't see Ping at sporting goods stores, SAMs, Costco etc. etc. while companies like Taylor Made will make a "house brand" for Dicks.

 

The option for those retailers that want to discount is don't be a ping retailer. When you become one you agree to the guidelines.

 

Probably one of the reasons why over the years I continue to buy ping stuff even when it isn't the hottest. Always admired their business acumen and their ability to remain a successful privately owned company.

[arkstorm]

Wrong on the law and see e.g. In Re Babies R Us Antitrust Litigation MDL

 

But more importantly, as a manufacturer, Ping does have the right to dictate the price of their product, but only in the wholesale price they charge their ratailers. The unlawful part comes when a manufacturer stiuplates the price further down the stream of commerce. And under the Sherman Act and the various states' consumer protection laws the argument of "The consumer has the option not to buy" as you suggest, is not a recognized defense.

 

Interesting!

 

I thought I knew a little about the basics of this sort of stuff. Clearly I'm not seeing the whole picture. :drinks:

 

I do have more questions, however. In terms of MAP, Ping isn't alone on this front. Other companies like Apple, Rolex, and others all have the same pricing structure no matter what authorized retailer you go to.

 

Why is it they can have such control over their product at retailers if the Sherman Act and other consmer protection laws are in place?

 

Its just a matter of being able to allege damages in direct and/or indirect consumer cases. This is harder done than said, and it is a real hurdle in these litigations. And if you can't prove damages, there is nothing for the lawyers to collect, so they don't pursue it.

 

As for criminal antitrust violations, these things don't rise to the level that garners the attention of the Elliott Spitzers of the world...but just you wait. No one thought he would target the commerical insurance industry but he took them down.

[JoeF]

I have a headache :drinks:

[gatorhead]

Also, it is not true that Ping will not buyback their old eqipment. Ping does this all the time. They take the equipment back and give the business credit towards future purchases.

 

As far as the other stuff, they are given the rules by the reps, told to read them, and warned what will happen if they do not follow it. I don't know about the legal parts, but I am willing to bet they have some pretty smart lawyers that would not let them do anything illegal.

[arkstorm]

Also, it is not true that Ping will not buyback their old eqipment. Ping does this all the time. They take the equipment back and give the business credit towards future purchases.

 

As far as the other stuff, they are given the rules by the reps, told to read them, and warned what will happen if they do not follow it. I don't know about the legal parts, but I am willing to bet they have some pretty smart lawyers that would not let them do anything illegal.

 

Bad bet! Think about all the companies with "pretty smart lawyers" who get into antitrust troubles all the time. Can anyone say Microsoft? But hey, its thinking like that, that keeps me in business.

[Gxgolfer]

Is there a definitive case law that states MAPP pricing/policies are illegal? The earlier case you cited doesn't seem appicable, unless I missed something.

[hoosiervolunteer]

I think Ping setting the prices protects the smaller golf shops and the green grass shops. By enforcing the price, Ping won't allow people to slash prices to corner their market. I can go to the golf supermarket or the pro shop at my home course and the price will be the same. As a consumer, I like this fact. I can choose where I buy Ping equipment based on the level of service I receive instead of being focused on price. Mom and Pop's shop can survive against large inventory stores by giving me a high level of service during my fitting and sale. I don't play Ping stuff anymore, but if I decide to I know what I pay will be the price anywhere. I don't like buying equipment at one store and then a week later seeing the same thing at a different store for a cheaper price. I don't want to be punished in my wallet for shopping where I get the best service.

[Gxgolfer]

I think Ping setting the prices protects the smaller golf shops and the green grass shops. By enforcing the price, Ping won't allow people to slash prices to corner their market. I can go to the golf supermarket or the pro shop at my home course and the price will be the same. As a consumer, I like this fact. I can choose where I buy Ping equipment based on the level of service I receive instead of being focused on price. Mom and Pop's shop can survive against large inventory stores by giving me a high level of service during my fitting and sale. I don't play Ping stuff anymore, but if I decide to I know what I pay will be the price anywhere. I don't like buying equipment at one store and then a week later seeing the same thing at a different store for a cheaper price. I don't want to be punished in my wallet for shopping where I get the best service.

 

 

I've heard this justification before for MAPP pricing. In reality, it doesn't seem to work that way though. Big Box stores always have a pricing advantage on the wholesale cost and kick back from marketing dollars because of the units sold. It does keep the advertised list price consistent from dealer to dealer but, I'm not sure if that equals the playing field.

[stevepoz]

If you can cite cases or statutes, I might be persuaded otherwise. However, I believe your statement that MAP is illegal is incorrect.

 

See, e.g.,

http://www.abanet.org/antitrust/committees/counsel/coop.pdf

"Since the Sherman Act prohibits only “agreements in restraint of trade,” manufacturers

can unilaterally announce in advance that they will deal only with distributors who adhere to

their pricing policies and can terminate those who depart from such a policy." (citing United States v. Colgate & Co., 250 U.S. 300 (1919))

 

http://www.ftc.gov/os/2000/05/mapanalysis.htm (discussing where certain parties agree to not exercise their "Colgate" rights which implies that such rights exist

 

http://www.arnoldandporterllp.net/publicat...lication_id=339

"The long-standing ... Colgate doctrine allows a supplier unilaterally to announce that it will not do business with dealers that do not comply with its suggested price policy and then to terminate noncomplying dealers."

 

Just do a go Google search "minimum advertised price" colgate and you will get a lot of results which seem to me to demonstrate that Ping's policy, as I know it seems to be okay. I am not an anti-trust lawyer, so I would advise anyone looking to try to do this to seek counsel. :drinks:

[Subsonic]

Ping is super strict on their pricing policies. We have a local store that lost their account because a part time employee rung up a putter incorrectly. I think he sold it for like $225 when it should have been $239. A minor mistake, but hey it is their policy. :drinks:

[scotte]

Hi, this is not a violation of the sherman act, we do the same thing in my business, and we had a customer who tried to get us on that, and it didn't work, I don't remember why off the top of my head, but the sherman act doesn't have anything to do with manufacture price setting for the lowest allowable advertised price.

 

 

 

I am the 4th generation in my family to fight for this country, and I am a capitolist, but I totally support ping on this one. In my business, I don't want my product to ever get a reputation of being "cheap" or "inexpensive" My products are expensive, and we are the best in our field, always have been.

 

 

 

If one guy sells products for less than what we allow them to advertise at, then that cheapens the product, and then our resells don't want to sell them anymore because they can't make any money.

[gjones77]

I'm going to have to agree with those who say Ping's policies are ethical.

 

If the retailer was allowed to price products at what ever cost they wanted to, yes this would create competition for awhile, but the mom and pop stores would never be able to compete with a Golfsmith or Golf Galaxy.

 

If you feel this type of argument isn't true, I want you to ask yourself to name some mom and pop electronics stores in your area...

 

Anyone living in the New England area might remember a chain of stores called Leechmeres, they were and electronics store back in the 80, early 90's that was driving out of business by Circuit City.

 

Circuit City's prices were lower than anyone else around and had great customer service for a long time, until the competition was gone, then the prices shot up and they started treating customers like trash.

 

Now we also have Best Buy, so they have another big chain store to compete against, none the less, in Massachusetts those two basically control the electronics market with a few smaller niche stores like Tweeter still surviving.

 

None the less, I can agree with Ping's policy just for the fact it's protecting their market, if they're reduced to really only dealing with a few large chain stores to sell in volume since the smaller stores were forced out of business, these larger markets would then be the only ones setting price points, including manufactures cost to them (Like Walmart does now).

 

Basically the stores would only agree to buy them for an extremely cheap rate, and in turn sell them at a huge markup, in turn Ping would possibly go out of business for lack of market if they didn't agree.

 

There's good and bad, but I can see Ping's reason

[samm980]

TaylorMade, Titleist, Callaway, etc have MAPP policies. The retailer agrees to the policy when they become a dealer? Is that not a contract? The problem seems to be when you see equipment on ebay at discount prices below MAPP....

 

In similar competitve Retail type markets, I know soft dollars are contributed for advertising. These Ads are submitted to the Corporate Marketing for approval so dollars can be claimed and compliance for advertising. I do think its unfair to ding a dealer for quoting low prices but, there is sometimes to sides to a story.

 

A contract which stipulates terms that are unlawful is never enforceable!

 

The real victim here is the consumer...who pays more because retailers are prevented from discouning down to a non-inflated price. This is textbook retail price fixing. The OEM's you mentioned, Taylormade, Titleist, Callaway, Ping, etc. should be put on notice that there are multi-billion dollar law suits making their way through the courts seeking redress for retail price fixing violations.

 

In a strict legal sense, if the OEM's aren't getting together to do so, it's not price fixing. I'd be interested in hearing more about the mulit-billion dollar law suits you're talking about.

 

Ping has every right to dictate the price they want to sell their prodcut as, there's nothing illegal about that at all, nor is it uncapitalistic. If retailers do not agree with their policies, they do not have to sell the clubs, and Ping will be bankrupt in a year.

 

If the price is wrong, the prodcut will not sell. I see more G5's in "real world" players bags than any other OEM's drivers in the Houston area . . .

 

Kiran my smart and handsome friend as always your right! As for the law suit nonsense that is what it is nonsense. Last time I checked you sign an agreement to sell Ping clubs and if you don't adhere to said agreement they pull your agreement. I am not sure what is so tough to understand about that, but I am a simple minded person.

 

I just love a letigious society.

[gjones77]

I am not sure what is so tough to understand about that, but I am a simple minded person.

 

I just love a letigious society.

 

"Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, I'm just a caveman. I fell on some ice and later got thawed out by some of your scientists. Your world frightens and confuses me! Sometimes the honking horns of your traffic make me want to get out of my BMW.. and run off into the hills, or wherever.. Sometimes when I get a message on my fax machine, I wonder: "Did little demons get inside and type it?" I don't know! My primitive mind can't grasp these concepts. But there is one thing I do know - when a man like my client slips and falls on a sidewalk in front of a public library, then he is entitled to no less than two million in compensatory damages, and two million in punitive damages. Thank you."

 

[arkstorm]

So say what you want about the ethics of it, or whether its good or bad for consumers, or whether lawsuits are nonesense, or whether just because Ping forces retailers into a price maintenance agreement it makes it okay. The bottom line is its illegal. Just because large manufacturers, e.g. Microsoft, Ping, etc., do it, doesn't make it legal! (And try not to cite case law from 1919 to rebut me please.) But here's some reading on the subject. The first blurb states the current state of the law. The following section is a brief history of US consumer laws. Enjoy.

 

RESALE PRICE MAINTENANCE (from: http://www.oag.state.ny.us/business/antitrust.html)

 

Resale price maintenance is [a] form of price fixing. It is often called "vertical" price fixing. It occurs when a manufacturer or distributor requires, rather than suggests, that its customers charge a specific price for an item at resale. Resale price maintenance is illegal at the wholesale or retail level.

 

 

Fair-Trade Laws (from: http://www.answers.com/topic/resale-price-maintenance)

 

State statutes enacted in the first half of the twentieth century permitting manufacturers to set minimum, maximum, or actual selling prices for their products, and thus to prevent retailers from selling products at very low prices.

 

Manufacturers have an interest in establishing and maintaining good will toward their products. This means assuring consumers that the manufacturers' goods are quality products. Good will is promoted by advertising and other sales efforts. Manufacturers in the early 1900s believed that commanding minimum retail prices was necessary to preserve good will, and that uncontrolled price-cutting by retailers would be detrimental to good will. Specifically, manufacturers feared that consumers would become skeptical if a particular retailer began to sell for a lower price a product that had had a relatively consistent price over the years: the lower price would undercut any claim by the manufacturer that the higher price was necessary to maintain the product's quality, and purchasers at the higher price would feel cheated.

 

The Great Depression following the stock market crash of 1929 started a movement toward state involvement in product price controls. State lawmakers believed that allowing manufacturers to dictate resale prices to retailers would help stabilize price levels and markets.

 

In 1931, California became the first state to pass fair-trade laws. These laws made it legal for a manufacturer to enter an agreement whereby the purchasing retailer, the signor, could resell a product only at a prescribed minimum price. In 1933, California amended these laws to make such an agreement binding on nonsignors. The amendments made minimum-price agreements enforceable against any retailer who had knowledge of another retailer's agreement with the manufacturer.

 

The setting of minimum resale prices, which state fair-trade laws legalized, was precisely the sort of vertical price-fixing that the federal Sherman Anti-Trust Act of 1890 (15 U.S.C.A. § 1) had been intended to prohibit. While the courts wrestled with the conflicting state and federal laws, Congress passed first the Miller-Tydings Act (50 Stat. 693 [Aug. 17, 1935]), which amended the Sherman Act to exempt state fair-trade laws, and then the McGuire Act (66 Stat. 632 [1952]), which allowed states to pass fair-trade laws making minimum price agreements enforceable against nonsignors as well.

 

After the enactment of Miller-Tydings and McGuire, state fair-trade laws and federal antitrust laws were no longer in conflict, and as many as forty-five states enacted fair-trade laws. As time passed, though, state courts whittled away at the fair-trade laws, often finding them to be in violation of the state's constitution. The perceived importance of allowing manufacturers to set minimum prices deteriorated as it became evident that the laws were harming the free market. In 1975, Congress, with support of the Ford administration, passed the Consumer Goods Pricing Act (Pub. L. No. 94-145), which repealed the Miller-Tydings and McGuire Acts, putting state fair-trade laws back within the prohibitions of the Sherman Act.

 

P.S.

 

Anyone want to guess what kind of law I practice?