Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
A case has not been brought under the law since 2000. Under the FTC’s interpretation, the Robinson-Patman Act is not a wholesale ban on price discrimination and could allow volume discounts. The ...
The Commission claims Pepsi's conduct violates the Robinson-Patman Act (RPA), a 1936 law that outlaws price discrimination. Dissenting commissioners Melissa Holyoak and Andrew Ferguson regard the ...
Sen. Rand Paul writes that repealing the Robinson-Patman Act would help bust inflation. ... 800-290-4726 more ways to reach us. Sign in. Mail. 24/7 Help. For premium support please call:
The Robinson–Patman Act (RPA) of 1936 (or Anti-Price Discrimination Act, Pub. L. No. 74-692, 49 Stat. 1526 (codified at 15 U.S.C. § 13)) is a United States federal law that prohibits anticompetitive practices by producers, specifically price discrimination.
Brooke Group Ltd. v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp., 509 U.S. 209 (1993), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the court required that an antitrust plaintiff alleging predatory pricing must show not only changes in market conditions adverse to its interests, as a threshold matter, but must show on the merits that (1) the prices complained of are below an appropriate measure of its ...
Pruneyard Shopping Center v. Robins, 447 U.S. 74 (1980), was a U.S. Supreme Court decision issued on June 9, 1980 which affirmed the decision of the California Supreme Court in a case that arose out of a free speech dispute between the Pruneyard Shopping Center in Campbell, California, and several local high school students (who wished to canvass signatures for a petition against United ...
Soon after Robinson's death, videos emerged of her being viciously beaten — but the FBI declined to press charges. Family of American who died after Mexico attack sues ‘Cabo 6’ and FBI ...
Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins, 578 U.S. 330 (2016), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court vacated and remanded a ruling by United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit on the basis that the Ninth Circuit had not properly determined whether the plaintiff has suffered an "injury-in-fact" when analyzing whether he had standing to bring his case in federal court. [1]