Federal Trade Commission v. Fred Meyer, Inc.
United States Supreme Court
390 U.S. 341 (1968)
- Written by John Reeves, JD
Facts
Fred Meyer, Inc. (Meyer) (defendant) induced two of its suppliers—Tri-Valley Packing Association (Tri-Valley) and Idaho Canning Company (Idaho Canning)—to take part in a promotional coupon-book campaign. Under the campaign, Meyer provided its customers with coupon books featuring coupons to purchase products supplied by Tri-Valley and Idaho Canning at substantial discounts. Meyer charged Tri-Valley and Idaho Canning $350 for each coupon. But Tri-Valley and Idaho Canning also supplied products to two wholesalers—Hudson House and Wadhams & Co. Hudson House and Wadhams & Co., in turn, sold the products to retailers who competed with Meyer. But neither Tri-Valley nor Idaho Canning ever paid either the wholesalers or the competing retailers for a similar promotional coupon program. The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) (plaintiff) brought administrative proceedings against Meyer and concluded that Meyer’s inducing of Tri-Valley and Idaho Canning to take part in the coupon program violated the Robinson-Patman Act because no similar allowances were offered to Meyer’s competitors. The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reversed, holding that the promotional allowances did not violate the Robinson-Patman Act. The FTC sought review in the United States Supreme Court.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Warren, C.J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 814,000 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.