Robinson-Patman Act

THE ROBINSON-Patman Act (RPA) enacted in 1936 is part of the antitrust legislation found in the Clayton Act of 1914. It prohibits discrimination in pricing, promotional allowances, and advertising. Better known as the Anti-Chain-Store Act or Anti-Megastore Act, the RPA is designed to protect small businesses from being driven out of the marketplace by giant franchised companies. It is also intended to protect wholesalers from being excluded from the purchasing chain. Wholesalers do not want such franchises bypassing them to buy products directly from manufacturers.

The logic behind the RPA is simple: Large corporations and businesses receive substantial discounts from their wholesale suppliers. If smaller businesses do not receive the same discounts, they cannot offer the same products at competitive prices. Eventually, these small businesses will be forced out of the market. For example, a giant hardware depot locates itself in a city that has two similar, but smaller, stores. To acquire a controlling share of the market, the megastore continuously undercuts its two competitors by offering much lower prices on popular, high-volume items such as supplies and tools. The smaller businesses cannot match the advertised prices of their competitor because they cannot sustain persistent losses in their operating revenues.

This practice is referred to as predatory pricing. The megastore absorbs short-term losses as a necessary function of driving out its local competitors. The outcomes are twofold. First, area competitors are eliminated, thus securing the megastore's profit margin. Second, once the newcomer has increased its market power, prices are set at a higher level than before. In the long run, revenues are restored.

A retail monopoly-by-default may result as prices are inflated to recoup earlier losses. For the megastore management, predatory pricing resembles “aggressive marketing” in an intensely competitive environment. Price discrimination, however, may result in small business closures and bankruptcy filings.

Claims of price discrimination and predatory pricing are hard to prove. The RPA has ten basic requirements that must be established for an effective claim of discrimination. These include, among others, evidence of intent, interstate commerce, goods of “like grade and quality,” and adverse effect(s) on competition. As a result, the RPA is complex, difficult to apply, and open to multiple interpretations. Claims of price discrimination, for example, have been brought against booksellers, grocery store chains, agricultural co-operatives, and franchised retailers.

Litigation is typically brought by individuals and small businesses claiming predatory pricing and discrimination. Several aggressive defenses to the RPA exist, however, and include cost justification, meeting competition, truth in advertising, availability, and functional discounts. The Federal Trade Commission is responsible for upholding provisions of the RPA, but it is seldom enforced by the government.