Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
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.
For price discrimination to succeed, a seller must have market power, such as a dominant market share, product uniqueness, sole pricing power, etc. [9] Some prices under price discrimination may be lower than the price charged by a single-price monopolist. Price discrimination can be utilized by a monopolist to recapture some deadweight loss.
In addition to the absolute pass-through that uses incremental values (i.e., $2 cost shock causing $1 increase in price yields a 50% pass-through rate), some researchers use pass-through elasticity, where the ratio is calculated based on percentage change of price and cost (for example, with elasticity of 0.5, a 2% increase in cost yields a 1% increase in price).
Metropolitan Housing Development Corp, 429 U.S. 252 (1977), was a case heard by the Supreme Court of the United States dealing with a zoning ordinance that in a practical way barred families of various socio-economic, and ethno-racial backgrounds from residing in a neighborhood. The Court held that the ordinance was constitutional because there ...
Gender-based price discrimination exists in many industries including insurance, dry cleaning, hairdressing, nightclubs, clothing, personal care products, discount prices and consumption taxes. A study by the New York City Department of Consumer and Worker Protection found that, on average, women's products cost seven percent more than similar ...
The Interstate Commerce Act of 1887 is a United States federal law that was designed to regulate the railroad industry, particularly its monopolistic practices. [1] The Act required that railroad rates be "reasonable and just", but did not empower the government to fix specific rates.
They agreed to increase the price of the shares in question at the end of certain days' trading, to make the prices look better in clients' portfolios. [ 43 ] Trading in stocks simply to move the market price is a serious abuse: it distorts market forces and undermines investors' confidence in the integrity of the prices quoted on exchanges ...
Fair Housing Council of San Fernando Valley v. Roommates.com, LLC, 521 F.3d 1157 (9th Cir. 2008), [1] is a case in which the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, sitting en banc, held that immunity under Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act (CDA) did not apply to an interactive online operator whose questionnaire violated the Fair Housing Act.