1. Why did the retail pharmacies lose this case?
2. a. In your opinion, have small pharmacies and small businesses generally lost significant revenue over the years to retail giants such as Walmart and Custom? Explain.
b. If so, does that loss constitute an antitrust wrong that should be remedied by law? Explain.
3. In what sense does the Robinson–Patman Act arguably reduce efficiency, thus harming consumer welfare?
4. Texaco sold gasoline at its retail tank wagon prices to Hasbrouck, an independent Texaco retailer, but granted discounts to distributors Gull and Dompier. Dompier also sold at the retail level. Gull and Dompier both delivered their gas directly to retailers and did not maintain substantial storage facilities. During the period in question, sales at the stations supplied by the two distributors grew dramatically, while Hasbrouck’s sales declined. Hasbrouck filed suit against Texaco, claiming that the distributor discount constituted a Robinson–Patman violation. Texaco defended, saying the discount reflected the services the distributors performed for Texaco, and that the arrangement did not harm competition. Decide. Explain.
5. Utah Pie produced frozen pies in its Salt Lake City plant. Utah’s competitors, Carnation, Pet, and Continental, sometimes sold pies in Salt Lake City at prices beneath those charged in other markets. Indeed, Continental’s prices in Salt Lake City were beneath its direct costs plus overhead. Pet sold to Safeway using Safeway’s private label at a price lower than that at which the same pies were sold under the Pet label. Pet employed an industrial spy to infiltrate Utah Pie and gather information. Utah Pie claimed that Carnation, Pet, and Continental were in violation of Robinson–Patman. Decide. Explain.
This complex, long-pending antitrust litigation has been the subject of numerous written decisions by various courts. . . .
In short, plaintiffs are a number of individually-owned retail pharmacies. Plaintiffs allege that defendants, five manufacturers of brand name prescription drugs (“BNPDs”), offered discounts and rebates to plaintiffs’ competitors but not to plaintiffs, and that this constitutes price discrimination in violation of the Robinson-Patman Act.