Elizabeth Haas is a partner and chair of the Antitrust Practice Group at Foley. In this video, she details unique business challenges that can raise antitrust issues. At Foley, we work closely with our consumer products clients to develop practical strategies, tailored to achieve business objectives while complying with antitrust law.
Key Takeaways
- Manufacturers of consumer products, as well as their distributors and retailers, face a variety of unique business challenges that can raise antitrust issues.
- A manufacturer’s preferred go-to-market strategy may include granting exclusive rights or territories to some distributors and retailers, requiring certain inventory or store requirements, and may prohibit or limit internet sales and advertising.
- These types of strategies are usually permissible, but there are antitrust considerations and limits.
- Sometimes a small change in approach can have a significant effect on the risk of a future antitrust challenge.
- The ability to influence or control the resale price, or price advertising, including minimum advertised pricing or MAP policies, unilateral pricing policies, and suggested resale price policies can present challenging antitrust issues if the programs are not both adapted and executed in careful compliance with the antitrust rules affecting pricing conduct.
- The Robinson Patman Act, and some state equivalents, may limit a manufacturer’s ability to offer different pricing or promotional assistance to competing distributors and retailers. There is no volume discount defense to Robinson Patman claim.
- There is no volume discount defense to Robinson Patman claim.
- Some consumer products manufacturers adopt strategies including direct-to-consumer sales, manufacturer online sales, or company stores that sell in competition with the authorized retailers.
- The antitrust laws do not prevent those strategies, but because they cause the manufacturer to become a competitor of its distributors and retailers extra care is needed to avoid any improper agreements between the manufacturers direct reselling arm and the competing distributors or retailers.
Disclaimer
This blog is made available by Foley & Lardner LLP (“Foley” or “the Firm”) for informational purposes only. It is not meant to convey the Firm’s legal position on behalf of any client, nor is it intended to convey specific legal advice. Any opinions expressed in this article do not necessarily reflect the views of Foley & Lardner LLP, its partners, or its clients. Accordingly, do not act upon this information without seeking counsel from a licensed attorney. This blog is not intended to create, and receipt of it does not constitute, an attorney-client relationship. Communicating with Foley through this website by email, blog post, or otherwise, does not create an attorney-client relationship for any legal matter. Therefore, any communication or material you transmit to Foley through this blog, whether by email, blog post or any other manner, will not be treated as confidential or proprietary. The information on this blog is published “AS IS” and is not guaranteed to be complete, accurate, and or up-to-date. Foley makes no representations or warranties of any kind, express or implied, as to the operation or content of the site. Foley expressly disclaims all other guarantees, warranties, conditions and representations of any kind, either express or implied, whether arising under any statute, law, commercial use or otherwise, including implied warranties of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. In no event shall Foley or any of its partners, officers, employees, agents or affiliates be liable, directly or indirectly, under any theory of law (contract, tort, negligence or otherwise), to you or anyone else, for any claims, losses or damages, direct, indirect special, incidental, punitive or consequential, resulting from or occasioned by the creation, use of or reliance on this site (including information and other content) or any third party websites or the information, resources or material accessed through any such websites. In some jurisdictions, the contents of this blog may be considered Attorney Advertising. If applicable, please note that prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Photographs are for dramatization purposes only and may include models. Likenesses do not necessarily imply current client, partnership or employee status.
Related Insights
February 24, 2026
Foley Viewpoints
Bridging AI and Clinical Reality: Lessons from the Mayo Clinic Platform in Precision Medicine
Artificial intelligence is no longer a peripheral tool in personalized medicine. AI is becoming a central driver of how diagnostics,…
February 24, 2026
Tariff & International Trade Resource
What Every Multinational Should Know About …The New Section 122 Tariffs and Preserving IEEPA Refund Rights
Share on Twitter
Share by Email
Share
Back to top
In the immediate aftermath of the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision invalidating tariffs imposed under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), the Trump administration has moved quickly to replace those tariffs with a new across-the-board tariff under Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974.
February 24, 2026
Tariff & International Trade Resource
What Every Multinational Should Know About…Managing the Aftermath of the Supreme Court’s IEEPA Tariff Decision (Part II)
The importer of record is the entity that initially pays all tariffs and thus is the entity that would receive any IEEPA tariff refunds. Nonetheless, behind the scenes there often are a variety of mechanisms importers of record may have used to handle the often unexpected tariffs, including pushing back on suppliers for price concessions, using surcharges to pass along tariffs, or general price increases.
