Washington, D.C.

The rumors of the death of price discrimination enforcement may have been greatly exaggerated. The Robinson-Patman Act (“RPA”) (15 U.S.C. §13), enacted in 1936, prohibits price discrimination by producers and resellers of goods between similarly situated purchasers. Government enforcement of the RPA has been infrequent during the last half-century, and non-existent since 2000. In 2007, the Antitrust Modernization Commission, a bipartisan group established by Congress to review federal antitrust laws, recommended repeal of the RPA, concluding that it disincentivized discounting and thereby harmed consumer welfare.

RPA enforcement, however, seems to be making a comeback. Antitrust enforcement under the Biden Administration has largely rejected the “consumer welfare standard”—which equates competition with harm to consumers, typically in the form of increased prices—in favor of a broader focus on excessive consolidation of private power and its longer-term economic implications. The RPA, enacted to protect smaller retailers from a competitive advantage that benefited chain stores and other larger competitors able to obtain lower wholesale prices, is consistent with this approach.

Recent press reports suggest the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) may be on the verge of an RPA enforcement action. These reports follow public statements by both FTC Chair Lina Khan and Commissioner Alvaro Bedoya emphasizing the RPA and indications that the FTC has opened at least two RPA investigations under Khan’s leadership. In March 2024, a group of 16 lawmakers, including some of the most prominent supporters of the Biden Administration’s enforcement agenda, urged the FTC to “revive enforcement” of the RPA in connection with consolidation and high prices in the food industry.

Moreover, the RPA remains enforceable through private actions. While such actions have been rare, and successful actions even more so, a federal court in California last month affirmed a jury verdict in favor of wholesalers of eye drops against distributors who were found to have sold the drops to Costco and Sam’s Club at a lower price than the plaintiffs received. In addition to the jury’s damages award, the court granted injunctive relief. L.A. Int’l Corp. v. Prestige Brands Holdings, Inc., 2024 WL 2272384 (C.D. Cal. May 20, 2024). Revived agency enforcement would likely lead to an increase in private actions as well.

Accordingly, businesses that sell and purchase goods should be familiar with the key provisions of the RPA:

• The RPA prohibits discrimination in price between at least two consummated sales to different purchasers. Mere offers to sell at a particular price or refusals to sell at all to a particular purchaser do not trigger RPA liability. Moreover, the RPA is limited to “commodities,” i.e., tangible goods sold for use, consumption, or resale within the United States. Services are excluded from the RPA’s ambit.
• The two sales must be reasonably contemporaneous, and the goods involved must be of “like grade and quality.”
• At least one of the sales must be in interstate commerce, i.e., across state lines.
• Prohibited discrimination includes the furnishing of services or facilities in connection with the sale of the commodity; any such services or facilities must be made available to all purchasers on proportionally equal terms. If a seller compensates its customer for services or facilities furnished in connection with the sale, such as marketing or promotion, it must make those payments available on proportionally equal terms to other purchasers that compete to distribute the same product.
• However, the RPA does not prohibit price differentials that merely allow for the differing methods or quantities in which the goods are sold or delivered to the respective purchasers or that result from a response to changing conditions affecting the saleability of goods (such as deterioration of perishable goods or obsolescence of seasonal goods).
• And there is no actionable price discrimination if the lower price was functionally available to the disfavored purchaser, provided that the disfavored purchaser was aware of the availability of the lower price and that such availability was not merely theoretical. For example, a volume-based discount might be facially available to all customers, but if the requisite volume threshold is higher than certain purchasers can realistically meet, it may not be considered functionally available to all purchasers.
• Unlike other antitrust statutes, the RPA does not require a showing of marketwide injury to competition. Rather, it is sufficient to show that the discrimination harmed a company’s ability to compete with the grantor of the discriminatory price, any person who knowingly received the benefit of the discriminatory price, or with customers of either. While the competitive injury ordinarily will occur at the buyer’s level, the RPA also permits claims for harm to competition between sellers, between customers of the favored and disfavored purchasers, or between customers even further downstream.
• A seller who is alleged to have discriminated in violation of the RPA may establish, as an affirmative defense, that it granted a lower price to the favored purchaser in order to meet (but not beat) the price of a competitor.
• Liability is not limited to sellers; the RPA also imposes liability on purchasers who knowingly induce or receive a favorably discriminatory price.
• A standalone provision of the RPA prohibits parties to a sale from granting or receiving any compensation, or any allowance or discount in lieu of compensation, except for services rendered.

The RPA is an oft-overlooked component of antitrust compliance, largely due to its infrequent enforcement. However, every company’s antitrust compliance program should include a review of its relationships with customers and suppliers to ensure that its pricing plans and pricing decisions comply with the RPA and that the reasons for any deviations from price, such as meeting competition, are well documented.

The Legal 500 United States 2024 edition has recognized Cohen & Gresser’s New York and Washington, D.C. offices for excellence across multiple categories, including Antitrust Litigation, Corporate Investigations and White-Collar Crime, Commercial Litigation, and Securities Litigation. Testimonials included in the guide praise the firm for being a “litigation powerhouse” and for its “devotion to the needs of the clients, its creativity, and its perseverance.”

Mark Cohen is once again recognized as a Leading Partner in both Securities Litigation and Corporate Investigations & White-Collar Crime: Advice to Individuals.

The 2024 guide also recognizes Lawrence T. Gresser, Jonathan Abernethy, Jason Brown, S. Gale Dick, Christian Everdell, Jeffrey Lang, Alisa Lu, Melissa Maxman, Douglas Pepe, John Roberti, Daniel Tabak, and Ronald Wick as recommended lawyers.

This 17th edition of The Legal 500 United States guide, which identifies the “true superstars of the profession,” involved a detailed assessment of various factors, including work conducted by law firms over the past 12 months and historically; experience and depth of teams; and client feedback.

Founded in 2002, Cohen & Gresser’s New York office serves as the firm’s headquarters. Our New York attorneys are particularly strong in complex litigation, investigations, and transactions. The firm’s Washington, D.C. office handles a range of commercial litigation and regulatory enforcement actions, with a focus on domestic and foreign antitrust issues.

Cohen & Gresser earned multiple practice area and individual lawyer rankings in the 2024 edition of Chambers USA, receiving high praise for having an “incredible collection of brilliant, hard-working lawyers” who are “focused on providing clear and easy to understand guidance and advice."

The firm’s White Collar Defense & Regulation practice is once again ranked in the guide, maintaining its position as one of the “Elite” firms in the Litigation: White-Collar Crime & Government Investigations category. Chambers recognized the firm’s “strong regulatory investigations and enforcement practice,” specifically highlighting its “expert financial services practice which offers particular strengths in FINRA and SEC proceedings.” Client feedback praises the team for its “strong expertise with the DOJ and with prosecutors.”

The Commercial Litigation practice is also ranked in the Litigation: General Commercial: Highly Regarded category, receiving high praise from clients for having a “strong understanding of the client’s needs” and for being “smart, creative and willing to try difficult strategies and aggressive approaches.”

The firm’s Antitrust & Competition practice is ranked in the Antitrust category, with Chambers noting that “Cohen & Gresser houses a strong practice across a range of antitrust disputes [including] sophisticated litigation.” Client feedback praises the team for being “creative and responsive” and having “strong knowledge of antitrust class actions.”

Partners throughout Cohen & Gresser’s US practices also earned individual rankings in the following categories:

Antitrust: Litigation Specialists (DC)                                  

Melissa H Maxman

John Roberti

Litigation: General Commercial (NY)

Lawrence T Gresser

Litigation: Securities (NY)

Mark S Cohen

Litigation: White-Collar Crime & Government Investigations (NY)

Jonathan S Abernethy

Jason Brown

Mark S Cohen

Christian R Everdell

Chambers is the world’s leading legal data and analytics provider, highlighting the top lawyers and law firms across the USA based on in-depth research that includes reference feedback, client satisfaction, reputation in the market, peer knowledge, and other discreet independent market sources.

Best Lawyers in America recognized 14 Cohen & Gresser lawyers in its newly-published 2024 guide. The publication—now in its 30^th edition—evaluates and selects lawyers based entirely on peer review. The survey process is “designed to capture, as accurately as possible, the consensus opinion of leading lawyers about the professional abilities of their colleagues within the same geographical area and legal practice area.”

Six C&G attorneys are recognized by their peers as “Best Lawyers” in their practice areas:

• Mark S. Cohen – Criminal Defense: White-Collar
• Lawrence T. Gresser – Commercial Litigation
• Jonathan S. Abernethy – Criminal Defense: White-Collar
• Colin Bridge – Criminal Defense: White-Collar
• Jason A. Brown – Criminal Defense: White-Collar
• Mark Spatz – Product Liability Litigation - Defendants

Eight attorneys are recognized as “Best Lawyers: Ones to Watch” in their practice areas:

• Luke Appling – Commercial Litigation and Litigation - Securities
• Sharon L. Barbour – Commercial Litigation and Criminal Defense: White-Collar
• William E. Kalema – Criminal Defense: White-Collar
• Phoebe King – Criminal Defense: White-Collar
• Barbara K. Luse – Commercial Litigation and Corporate Law
• Alexandra K. Theobald – Commercial Litigation and Corporate Law
• Eszter Vincze – Commercial Litigation and Criminal Defense: White-Collar
• Benjamin Zhu – Criminal Defense: White-Collar

The Antitrust Division of the U.S. Department of Justice (“DOJ”) last week announced the formation of a new task force to guide its enforcement strategy and policy approach to health care, with an apparent focus on industry consolidation and collusive behavior.

According to the DOJ announcement released on May 9, 2024, the Task Force on Health Care Monopolies and Collusion (“HCMC”) will consider “widespread competition concerns shared by patients, health care professionals, businesses and entrepreneurs.” Issues to be addressed include payer-provider consolidation, serial acquisitions, labor and quality of care, medical billing, health care information technology services, and access to and use of health care data. The task force will include both civil and criminal enforcement attorneys, as well as economists, industry experts, technologists, data scientists, investigators, and policy advisors from across the Antitrust Division’s sections and offices.

The announcement of the HCMC is unsurprising in many respects. The health care industry has long been a major target of antitrust enforcement, and the Biden DOJ has previously signaled its continued focus on health care competition. In December 2022, the Antitrust Division entered into a formal collaboration with the Office of the Inspector General of the Department of Health and Human Services aimed at preventing collusion and promoting competition in health care markets. And just last month, the Antitrust Division launched an online portal for the public to report potentially anticompetitive health care practices.

Moreover, there is precedent for efforts to consolidate antitrust enforcement expertise in complex industries. Last week’s announcement is reminiscent of the Federal Trade Commission’s 2019 formation of a task force focused on competition in technology markets. Notably, like that task force, the HCMC appears to be drawing on the agency’s current resources rather than hiring additional staff, suggesting that the Antitrust Division’s focus is on more efficient, and not necessarily broader, enforcement.

In a National Law Journal article about the HCMC, Melissa H. Maxman, Washington DC Office Managing Partner, was quoted as noting that there are smaller health care companies that will be relieved to be examined under an enforcement approach that is targeted at their specific factual situations. “Task forces sometimes can be inefficient,” she added, “[b]ut if ever there were a need for one, it would be in health care competition.” While the impact of the HCMC remains to be seen, the Antitrust Division’s approach has the potential to facilitate a better informed and more comprehensive analysis of a market that poses unique regulatory and enforcement challenges.

The Cohen & Gresser antitrust team has extensive experience representing businesses in the health care industry, including physicians, pharmacies, and manufacturers. If you have any questions about potential areas of focus for the HCMC, please contact either of the authors of this article.

Cohen & Gresser's Washington, D.C. lawyers have been recognized in the 2024 Super Lawyers guide.

Each year, Super Lawyers identifies outstanding lawyers nationwide and regionally who have attained a high degree of peer recognition and professional achievement. Only 5 percent of lawyers are selected as Super Lawyers, and only 2.5 percent are selected as Rising Stars. This latest guide recognizes 100 percent of our D.C. partners and associates.

The C&G lawyers recognized as Washington, D.C. Super Lawyers are:

• Melissa H. Maxman – Antitrust Litigation
• John Roberti – Antitrust Litigation
• Ronald F. Wick – Antitrust Litigation

The C&G lawyers recognized as Washington, D.C. Rising Stars are:

• Derek Jackson – Business Litigation
• Alisa Lu – Business Litigation

Last month, the Department of Justice Antitrust Division and the Federal Trade Commission (collectively, the Agencies) released the 2023 Merger Guidelines. The Guidelines are the latest iteration of a guidance document published by the Agencies since 1968, which has been revised numerous times over the years.

In this C&G Client Alert, Ronald Wick, John Roberti, and Derek Jackson write that the newest Guidelines articulate a more comprehensive and aggressive approach to merger enforcement than contemplated in recent iterations, and explore the most significant changes.

Cohen & Gresser partner John Roberti has been recognized as a Thought Leader in the Competition section of the Who’s Who Legal (WWL) guide, and partner Thomas Shortland has been recognized as a Future Leader in the guide’s Commercial Litigation section.

The Competition report “brings together the insight, expertise, and wisdom of some of the world’s foremost competition lawyers and economists in a single report.” John joins a distinguished group of lawyers and other professionals who, according to WWL, “are worthy of special mention owing not only to their vast expertise and experience advising on some of the world’s most significant and cutting-edge legal matters, but also their ability to innovate, inspire, and go above and beyond to deliver for their clients.”

The Commercial Litigation report “provides an in-depth analysis of the foremost litigators around the world who are singled out for their outstanding ability within this contentious context.” Tom is included among “standout practitioners in the litigation field” that WWL identified as future leaders in the market.

Who’s Who Legal is an organization that identifies the leading legal practitioners and consulting experts in business law based on comprehensive, independent research. The individuals featured in the guide obtained the largest number of nominations from peers, corporate counsel, and other market sources.

Cohen & Gresser lawyers Mark S. Cohen, John Roberti, and Daniel Tabak have been selected as “Litigation Stars” in the 2024 edition of Benchmark Litigation. The guide’s “Stars” are identified through Benchmark Litigation’s independent research process as among the preeminent litigation practitioners in the United States. The guide conducts extensive interviews with litigators, dispute resolution specialists and their clients, as well as analysis of the market’s most important cases and firm developments, in selecting its “Stars.” Lawyers included on the list are highly regarded by their peers and possess a strong case record and positive client feedback.

Since its inception in 2008, Benchmark Litigation has been the only publication on the market to focus exclusively on litigation in the United States.

Cohen & Gresser is pleased to announce that Mark S. Cohen, Melissa H. Maxman, John Roberti, and Ronald F. Wick are included in the 2024 Lawdragon 500 Leading Litigators in America guide. Selection for the guide is based on extensive independent research focused on which lawyers and law practices have had a significant impact, with an emphasis on recent matters handled.

Recognized Lawyers

• Mark S. Cohen – Commercial Litigation, including Real Estate, Antitrust, and White Collar

• Melissa H. Maxman – Litigation, including White Collar and Antirust

• John Roberti – Antitrust & Competition Law, including Litigation

• Ronald F. Wick – Antitrust & Competition Litigation

Lawdragon is a legal media company providing news content and editorial features, including guides to the nation’s leading lawyers. This is Lawdragon’s second edition of the guide, assessing America’s top talent among those principally representing corporations and other organizations litigating claims involving antitrust, financial and securities litigation, intellectual property, commercial, M&A, cybersecurity and data privacy, and white collar and investigations.