Hi Stoshu, There doesn't seem to be a lot of information regarding Minimum Advertising Pricing, but the FTC published a bit of information on it in its Resource Guide to Business Competition. If anyone has information about MAP policies or is familiar with it, please do comment! Message Edited by Christine_Lai on 09-18-2009 11:03 AM Message Edited by Christine_Lai on 09-18-2009 11:10 AM

Hi, I am a small business owner selling products on the internet. Several manufacturers that I buy from are restricting competition by requiring their dealers, like myself, to sell their products at or above a 'Minimum Advertised Price'. This is obviously price-fixing, keeping prices artificially high for consumers! I believe this is a clear violation of United States antitrust laws! I recently contacted the FTC regarding this issue and here is the response I received: 'Minimum advertised pricing is a practice that generally is evaluated under what antitrust lawyers call the rule of reason. That is because it has the potential to be pro-competitive by allowing manufacturers to ensure retailers have adequate markup to allow service and support to customers. It does, however, have the potential to be anticompetitive as well, however. As a result the FTC must make a careful assessment in each case whether it is pro- or anti-competitive on balance. Accordingly, the answer is not clear that the practice constitutes price-fixing.Nonetheless, the FTC is interested in such practices and has made investigation and evaluation of minimum advertised prices and minimum resale prices one of its priorities. Could you please supply me with the name(s) of the manufacturers and a brief description of their requirements/restrictions (in general termse.g., all products come with a MAP and your distribution agreement will be terminated if you do not comply)? I will forward the information and your contact information to our investigation staff, who will determine whether further investigation is warranted.Thank you for bringing your concerns to our attention' I did forward the information the FTC requested to them and followed up to check on the status. Here is their response: 'I passed your information to the enforcement division at the FTC responsible for investigating MAP agreements. I cannot tell you the status of the investigation as the FTC does not discuss or comment upon confidential investigations. If enforcement staff need to contact you for further information they will.' I suggest that you contact the FTC as well. If they fail to take action and enforce the anti-trust laws of the United States, I strongly believe a class-action suit would be in order!

Leegin Creative Leather Products, Inc. v. PSKS, Inc., 551 U.S. 877 (2007), was a case in which the United States Supreme Court reversed the 96-year-old doctrine that vertical price restraints were illegal per se under Section 1 of the Sherman Act, replacing the older doctrine with the rule of reason. The decision overruled a long-standing precedent, Dr. Miles Medical Co. v. John D. Park & Sons Co., 220 U.S. 373 (1911). ---This post was edited to remove a commercial link. Read our discussion policies for more Community best practices.

Haven't we made an incorrect assumption when we ask if 'MAP pricing (Minimum Advertised Pricing)... is a practice whereby manufacturers try to dictate to retailers the minimum price at which they will allow their products to be sold.' As I understand it, it is still a violation of the Sherman Act formanufacturers to REQUIRE retailers/dealers to adhere to minimum selling prices... set by manufacturers. MAP relates to what a dealer may ADVERTISE (i.e., the dealer's first offer), doesn't it? If I contact a dealer and, regardless of what he has advertised, ask him for a price on purchasing several items (for example), I believe that dealer can sell to me whatever he wants at whatever price he wants (i.e., free trade). Isn't that also the case if I contact the dealer and state that I am not willing to pay his advertised price on a particular MAP item (i.e., just one item) but will consider a lower offer from him (or I make him a lower offer). In that case cannot the dealer alsosell to me whatever he wants at whatever price he wants? Does anyone know if the above interpretation ofLeegin Creative Leather Products, Inc. v. PSKS, Inc., 551 U.S. 877 is nonconforming? NewtonianX