Federal Trade Commission v. Cement Institute
United States Supreme Court
333 U.S. 683 (1948)
- Written by Sean Carroll, JD
Facts
The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) (defendant) opened an investigation into the pricing practices of the 74 corporate members of the Cement Institute (Cement) (plaintiff), a cement industry trade association. The FTC found that the companies’ prices over a series of years, even in sealed bids, were consistently identical, down to a fraction of a penny. Cement argued that cement was a standard product with no available modifications. Further, Cement argued that there was significant price competition in the industry. Thus, according to Cement, the lack of price differences among companies was not surprising, and, without more, is not evidence of price-fixing. Finally, Cement argued that the FTC had prejudged the outcome in the complaint, based on reports the FTC had filed with the president and Congress. In those reports, the FTC opined that the cement industry’s pricing practices were illegal. Consequently, Cement asked the FTC to disqualify itself from consideration of the complaint. The FTC declined and found that the companies had engaged in an elaborate price-fixing scheme, in violation of federal antitrust law. The FTC issued a cease-and-desist order. Cement filed suit appealing the order, and the court of appeals reversed. The United States Supreme Court granted certiorari.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Black, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 803,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.
