Robinson-Patman Case

A seller charging competing buyers different prices for the same "commodity" or discriminating in the provision of "allowances" — compensation for advertising and other services — may be violating the Robinson-Patman Act. This kind of price discrimination may give favored customers an edge in the market that has nothing to do with their superior efficiency. Price discriminations are generally lawful, particularly if they reflect the different costs of dealing with different buyers or are the result of a seller's attempts to meet a competitor's offering.
The Supreme Court has ruled that price discrimination claims under the Robinson-Patman Act should be evaluated consistent with broader antitrust policies. In practice, Robinson-Patman claims
The Health Care Services & Products Division issued a recent advisory opinion discussing the application of this exemption to pharmaceutical purchases by a nonprofit health maintenance organization.
Q: I operate two stores that sell compact discs. My business is being ruined by giant discount chains that sell their products for less than my wholesale cost. What can I do?
A: Discount chains may be able to buy compact discs at a lower wholesale price because it costs the manufacturer less, on a per-unit basis, to deal with large-volume customers. If so, the manufacturer may have a "cost justification" defense to the differential pricing and the policy would not violate the Robinson-Patman Act.
Q: One of my suppliers is selling parts at its company-owned store at retail prices that are below the wholesale price that it charges me for the parts. Isn't this illegal?
A: The transfer of parts from a parent to its subsidiary generally is not considered a "sale" under the Robinson-Patman Act. Thus, this situation would not have the required element of sales to two or more purchasers at different