CHAPTER V
ROBINSON-PATMAN ACT
The Requirement of a Difference in Price
In Dahl Automotive Onalaska Inc. v. Ford Motor Co.,1 the court found
that a program that offered dealers an incentive payment on each Lincoln
vehicle sold, but only if the dealer agreed to construct an exclusive
showroom for Lincoln vehicles, was not price discrimination under the
Robinson-Patman Act.2 The court rejected the dealer’s argument that the
incentive payment effectively lowered the price of the vehicle in violation
of Section 2(a) because while “rebates and allowances are essentially free
money that a buyer recieves without a corresponding cost or obligation,”
the incentives offered by Ford “are decidely not free; they are tied to a
dealer’s commitment to spend millions of dollars constructing an
exclusive showroom.”3
The Requirement of Competitive Injury
Secondary Line Injury
In In re Bookends & Beginnings LLC,4 where a retail and online
bookseller brought a putative antitrust class-action lawsuit against
Amazon.com, Inc. and the five largest book publishers in the United States
alleging secondary-line price discrimination, the magistrate judge
recommended granting defendants’ motion to dismiss because the Morton
Salt5 inference of competitive injury was inappropriate when the actual
discount to the allegedly favored purchaser was not known or alleged and
there was no other factual support for the complaint’s “conclusory
allegation” that the discount was “steep,” “huge,” or “substantial.”6
2. Id. at 937-38.
3. Id. at 938.
4. 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 152596 (S.D.N.Y. 2022).
6. Id. at *67.
