Retail rules all change now.

[solarbird]

The Supreme Court has overturned Dr. Miles Medical v. John D. Parke Sons (1911), which held that manufacturer price-fixing agreements between manufacturers, distributors, and retailers, was, by presumption, a violation of the Sherman Anti-Trust Act. This type of price-fixing is now presumptively legal, though it can be ruled illegal on a per-case basis if it is specifically shown to have damaged competition.

This is a fundamental change to retail landscape in the US and will increase upward pressure on prices, as various types of discounting will become much easier to stop. (Costco, for example, will probably be a big loser here; so will internet retailers.) SCOTUSblog talked about it during the argument phase, and has more commentary now. Manufacturers will be able to broadly set minimum price requirements at retail as a condition of sale to distributors (and distributors will be able to do the same to retailers), even though they no longer own the goods, rather than suggestions, as seen in the MSRP. The question of whether this is anticompetitive is slightly different as price-to-consumer is not the only measure of competition, but there's little debate that it will make average retail prices higher. The overall effect will be interesting to watch.

(Original pointer to the gaming blog courtesy ysabel.)

Comments

[jarandhel.livejournal.com]

Any idea whether the usual suspects (with regard to massive regressionary cultural/legal changes) are for this or against this?

[solarbird]

The vote went exactly the 5-4 way you'd expect, if that's what you mean. Otherwise, I don't know what you mean.

[jarandhel.livejournal.com]

I meant more is this an issue the Dominionists are actively pushing for (and the conservatives on SCOTUS just playing to) or is it a repercussion (one they may not actually have intended) of them pushing for a more conservative SCOTUS?

[solarbird]

I have not seen any specific theocrat pressure (or even position) on this issue.

[jarandhel.livejournal.com]

Interesting. That makes me think it's probably an unintended side effect... one that may make life a lot more economically difficult for their base, especially as it takes the ability to control prices out of the hands of larger chain stores like Wal-Mart and puts them back in the hands of the manufacturers...

[solarbird]

I don't think Wal-Mart (who I note as an aside recently caved to theocon pressure on other issues) needs to worry. They're so much of the marketplace that they've long been able to dictate to manufacturers not because of law, but because of economic weight.

[llachglin.livejournal.com]

Hmm. It seems that this should also allow price-fixing on the low-end, right? So a big retailer (whether WalMart or Costco) could set low prices if they thought it gave them a competitive advantage. I can see this being used to drive smaller retailers out of business.

This seems like a negative ruling to me, but I don't think it's necessarily inflationary. It's hard to say. The main effect seems likely to be the further destruction of local retail.

[banner.livejournal.com]

somebody at google likes you. This is already in their search list (this post that is).

[solarbird]

Really? Hell, most of the time, I can't use Google to search for stuff on my LJ I posted months ago. Bizarre.