Cement Manufacturers Protective Ass'n v. United States
1925 U.S. LEXIS 740, 268 U.S. 588, 45 S. Ct. 586 (1925)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The gathering and dissemination of trade information among competitors, such as production statistics, sales data on closed transactions, and information used to prevent fraud, is not an unreasonable restraint of trade under the Sherman Act, provided there is no agreement or concerted action to use this information to fix prices or limit production.
Facts:
- The Cement Manufacturers Protective Association, comprised of nineteen member corporations, was organized to collect and disseminate information among its members.
- A common industry practice was the use of 'specific job contracts,' which acted as options for contractors to buy cement for a specific future construction project at a guaranteed maximum price.
- Contractors often secured multiple such contracts from different manufacturers for a single job to obtain more cement than needed, a practice known as 'padding,' particularly when market prices were expected to rise.
- The Association gathered and shared detailed information about these contracts, which allowed members to identify and refuse to fulfill the padded portions of the contracts that contractors were not legitimately entitled to.
- The Association compiled and distributed freight-rate books, based on pre-existing industry basing points, to help members quickly and accurately quote delivered prices.
- Members also exchanged monthly reports on overdue customer accounts and statistical data on their production, shipments, and stock on hand.
Procedural Posture:
- The United States filed a petition in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York against the Cement Manufacturers Protective Association and its members.
- The petition alleged that the defendants' information-sharing activities constituted a restraint of interstate commerce in violation of § 1 of the Sherman Act.
- After a final hearing, the District Court, as the court of first instance, found for the United States.
- The District Court entered a decree granting a perpetual injunction against the Association and its members, enjoining them from continuing the challenged activities.
- The Cement Manufacturers Protective Association, as appellant, appealed the final decree directly to the Supreme Court of the United States.
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 a trade association's gathering and dissemination of information among its members regarding specific job contracts, freight rates, credit, and production statistics constitute an unreasonable restraint of interstate commerce in violation of the Sherman Act when there is no agreement to fix prices or limit production?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Stone
No. A trade association's gathering and sharing of information among competitors does not violate the Sherman Act if there is no agreement to use that information to fix prices, limit production, or otherwise restrain trade. The court reasoned that sharing information to prevent fraudulent practices by customers, such as padding specific job contracts, is a legitimate business activity aimed at preventing fraud, not an unlawful restraint of commerce. Similarly, disseminating data on production, past sales prices, and transportation costs is permissible because any resulting price uniformity could be the natural outcome of active competition in a market with a standardized product, rather than evidence of a conspiracy. The court found no evidence of any agreement or concerted action to restrain trade, distinguishing the case from precedents where such agreements were present.
Dissenting - Chief Justice Taft, Justice Sanford, and Justice McReynolds
Yes. This systematic exchange of detailed trade information among competitors inherently tends to stabilize prices and curtail production, which constitutes an unlawful restraint of trade. (Note: The opinion states these justices dissented, referring to their reasoning in the companion case, Maple Flooring Ass'n v. United States. Their view was that even without an explicit agreement, such organized cooperation has the necessary effect of suppressing competition, which the Sherman Act was designed to prevent.)
Analysis:
This decision, along with its companion case Maple Flooring Ass'n v. United States, established a more permissive 'rule of reason' standard for trade association information-sharing activities under the Sherman Act. It signaled a departure from a stricter approach that viewed nearly any exchange of price-related information among competitors with deep suspicion. The ruling created a legal safe harbor for associations to exchange past and aggregated data, so long as there was no accompanying agreement to fix prices or output. This focused the legal inquiry on the purpose and effect of the information sharing, distinguishing legitimate business intelligence from collusive behavior.
