McDonough v. Toys “R” Us, Inc.
United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania
638 F. Supp. 2d 461 (2009)
- Written by Heather Whittemore, JD
Facts
Babies “R” Us (BRU) (defendant) was a retail chain that sold baby products across the United States. In the early 2000s, BRU was the dominant retailer of baby products. Later, internet retailers began competing with BRU by offering discounts on baby products. To maintain its dominance, BRU threatened to stop carrying products from manufacturers unless the manufacturers agreed to block the internet retailers from offering discounts on the manufacturers’ products. As a result, manufacturers agreed to enforce resale-price minimums against the internet retailers, preventing the internet retailers from offering discounts that BRU could not match. A group of consumers (collectively, the consumers) filed a lawsuit under § 4 of the Clayton Act against BRU, claiming that BRU conspired with baby-product manufacturers to restrict competition in the relevant market in violation of § 1 of the Sherman Act. The consumers believed that BRU’s actions resulted in higher prices for baby products because BRU did not have to lower its prices to meet the discounts offered by the internet retailers. The consumers moved for class certification under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(3).
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Brody, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 899,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 47,000 briefs, keyed to 994 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.

