Fines imposed on Apple, Tech Data and Ingram Micro* The Autorité de la concurrence imposes fines totalling €1.1 billion on Apple for anti-competitive agreements within its distribution network and for abuse of economic dependence concerning its „premium“ (…) In Dunlop Pneumatic Tyre Co Ltd v Selfridge & Co Ltd [1915] AC 847, a contract law case in England, tyre manufacturer Dunlop had signed an agreement with a dealer to obtain £5 per tyre as lump sum damages if the product was sold below list price (with the exception of car dealers). The House of Lords decided that Dunlop could not enforce the agreement. However, this had nothing to do with the legality of resale pricing clauses, which was out of the question at the time. The decision was based on the doctrine of contract fidelity, given that the retailer Selfridge had purchased Dunlop`s goods from an intermediary and had no contractual relationship with Dunlop. In Dunlop Pneumatic Tyre Co Ltd v New Garage & Motor Co Ltd [1915] AC 79, the House of Lords confirmed the applicability of the requirement contained in the resale price maintenance clause to pay £5 in damages per item sold below list price, as this was not a penalty clause (which would not be applicable), but a valid and enforceable clause of lump sum damages. Since the Tribunal finally concluded that maintenance resale contracts were now valued according to the basic rule, you should really abide by these sections. The Court provides a roadmap with factors that complement or affect the likely legality of an agreement. The Supreme Court of Leegin, of course, was only talking about federal cartel laws. Many states maintain their prohibitions per se in their own antitrust laws against vertical price cartels. So, if you are a domestic manufacturer, you also need to know the national legislation on cartels. For example, under California`s Cartel Act – the Cartwright Act – sales resale agreements may still be illegal on their own (although the California Supreme Court has not dealt with this issue definitively since Leegin). In contrast, in Minnesota (go Twins!), where the Cartel Act is interpreted in accordance with federal cartel legislation, it is unlikely that an RPM agreement under Minnesota`s cartel laws is per se illegal.

In 1964 the Resale Price Act was passed, which now considered that all resale price agreements were contrary to the public interest, unless proven otherwise. In 2010, the Office of Fair Trading (OFT) opened a formal investigation into allegations by an online travel agency (OTA), Skoosh, regarding the maintenance of resale prices in the hotel sector. [2] The investigation focused on agreements between OTAs and hotels, which could have resulted in fixed or minimum resale prices. [3] In September 2015, the OFT`s successor, the Competition and Markets Authority (CMA), closed its investigation into allegations of infringements of competition law in the online booking sector. Khan[1] stated that the rule no longer applies in itself to agreements setting the maximum resale price and that they should be analysed according to the rule of reason. . . .