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
January 13, 2026
Foley Viewpoints
Recent IRS Guidance on Branch Profits Tax Treaty Benefits for Foreign Reverse Hybrid Entities
The IRS recently issued a Chief Counsel Advice Memorandum (AM 2025-002) (the CCA) that provides helpful guidance regarding the application of the branch profits tax (BPT) in connection with reverse foreign hybrid (RFH) entities and U.S. income tax treaties with foreign countries.
January 13, 2026
Foley Career Perspectives
Foley Attorneys Deepen Boys & Girls Clubs of America Partnership
As the first and only law firm to partner with BGCA on a national scale, Foley supports the organization's youth leadership development strategy through programs and initiatives that open doors for the next generation to thrive.
January 12, 2026
Energy Current
Ninth Circuit Hears Oral Argument in Challenge to California Climate Disclosure Laws SB 261 and SB 253; No Ruling Yet
On January 9, 2026, a three-judge panel for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit heard oral argument in a challenge to…
