We know that many of you not only deal with advertising but are also proud to count yourself as among the elite few who wrestle with the intricacies of the Robinson-Patman Act. If that sounds like you, read on as our own Rob Davis analyzes a recent 7th Circuit decision. If not, then stand at ease and remain blissfully ignorant of price discrimination, “like grade and quality,” promotional allowances and other such terms.
The Seventh Circuit’s Robinson-Patman Decision: What Does “Promote” Really Mean?
It might surprise many in the “real world” (which for these purposes means everyone other than antitrust/competition lawyers), but to the antitrust bar, the Robinson-Patman Act is the red-headed stepchild of competition law. Whereas competition law is now focused entirely on consumer welfare and the preservation of competition rather than the profits of competitors—even the small ones—the Robinson-Patman Act is almost obstinately about protecting the little guy. Thus, for years antitrust lawyers and the FTC have been tying themselves into knots to make the Act play well with the other antitrust laws, to varying levels of success.
Enter Clorox Bleach and the Seventh Circuit’s awkward decision in Woodman’s Food Market v. Clorox Company and Clorox Sales Company.