Allied Tube & Conduit Corp. v. Indian Head, Inc.
100 L. Ed. 2d 497, 1988 U.S. LEXIS 2629, 486 U.S. 492 (1988)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The Noerr-Pennington doctrine does not shield an economically interested party from antitrust liability for conspiring to influence a private standard-setting association, even if the association's standards are widely adopted by governments, when the anticompetitive harm flows directly from the private action itself.
Facts:
- The National Fire Protection Association (NFPA), a private organization, publishes the influential National Electrical Code (Code), which is routinely adopted into law by many state and local governments.
- Indian Head, Inc. developed a plastic electrical conduit made of polyvinyl chloride (PVC), which offered competitive advantages over the traditional steel conduit.
- Indian Head proposed that its PVC conduit be approved for inclusion in the 1981 edition of the NFPA Code.
- Allied Tube & Conduit Corp., the nation's largest producer of steel conduit, viewed Indian Head's product as a competitive threat.
- To block the proposal, Allied and other steel interests conspired to pack the NFPA's 1980 annual meeting with new members whose sole function was to vote against the PVC conduit.
- Allied recruited 155 new members—including employees, agents, and their relatives—and paid over $100,000 for their memberships, travel, and expenses.
- At the meeting, these new members were organized by group leaders with walkie-talkies and hand signals, and they successfully defeated the PVC proposal by a narrow vote of 394 to 390.
Procedural Posture:
- Indian Head, Inc. sued Allied Tube & Conduit Corp. in the U.S. District Court for violation of § 1 of the Sherman Act.
- A jury found Allied liable and awarded Indian Head $3.8 million in damages based on the independent marketplace harm caused by the product's exclusion from the Code.
- The District Court granted Allied's motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict (JNOV), ruling that Allied's conduct was immune under the Noerr-Pennington doctrine.
- Indian Head, as appellant, appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.
- The Court of Appeals reversed the district court, holding that Noerr-Pennington immunity did not apply.
- Allied, as petitioner, petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court for a writ of certiorari, which was granted.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does the Noerr-Pennington doctrine provide antitrust immunity for concerted efforts by an economically interested market participant to influence a private standard-setting association, where that association's standards are widely adopted into law by state and local governments?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Brennan
No. The Noerr-Pennington doctrine does not immunize anticompetitive activity within a private standard-setting process from antitrust liability simply because its standards are often adopted by governments. The court must consider the context and nature of the activity. Here, the restraint on trade resulted from private action within a commercial context, not from governmental action. The NFPA is not a 'quasi-legislative' body; it is a private association of economically interested members, and its processes have traditionally been subject to antitrust scrutiny. Unlike the political publicity campaign in Noerr, Allied's conduct involved orchestrating the exercise of a private association's decision-making authority, which carries its own market power. This conduct is more aptly characterized as commercial activity with a political impact, rather than political activity with a commercial impact, and therefore is not shielded from antitrust laws.
Dissenting - Justice White
Yes. The Noerr-Pennington doctrine should immunize Allied's conduct from antitrust liability. The majority misapplies Noerr by holding that the ultimate aim of influencing government is not dispositive. Because the NFPA's codes are almost certain to be adopted by legislatures, efforts to influence the code-writing process are a direct and effective form of petitioning the government. The majority's vague 'context and nature' test offers no intelligible guidance and chills participation in valuable private standard-setting organizations that provide essential expertise to governments. The 'sham' exception to Noerr is sufficient to guard against flagrant abuses, and this ruling will unfortunately discourage open discussion of safety issues by exposing participants to treble-damages liability for successful advocacy.
Analysis:
This decision significantly narrows the scope of the Noerr-Pennington doctrine by establishing that it does not protect anticompetitive conduct within private, non-governmental standard-setting bodies. The Court created a distinction between immune 'political activities' with commercial impacts and non-immune 'commercial activities' with political impacts, based on the context and nature of the conduct. This ruling serves as a warning to members of trade and standard-setting associations that using association processes to exclude competitors, even with the ultimate goal of influencing legislation, can lead to antitrust liability. It reinforces that the procompetitive legitimacy of such associations depends on maintaining non-partisan procedures free from subversion by economically interested members.
