LePage’s, Inc. v. 3M
United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
324 F.3d 141 (2003)
- Written by Rose VanHofwegen, JD
Facts
3M (defendant) makes 90 percent of the transparent tape sold in the United States, known as Scotch tape. Competitor LePage’s, Inc. (plaintiff) makes transparent tape sold under retailers’ house brands. 3M offered rebates to customers who bought multiple 3M products bundled together. For major retailers, those rebates exceeded hundreds of thousands of dollars, or more than half of LePage’s total sales to the same customer. LePage’s also claimed that 3M made payments to customers to secure exclusive dealing. For example, 3M allegedly paid Kmart a $1 million growth reward to use 3M as its sole supplier. One buyer said he could not buy anything 3M made from LePage’s. LePage’s sued, alleging the exclusive dealing and bundling monopolized the transparent tape market in violation of antitrust laws. The jury awarded LePage’s almost $23 million. 3M appealed, arguing it could not violate antitrust laws without pricing products below cost.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Sloviter, J.)
Dissent (Greenberg, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 806,000 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.
