Monsanto Co. v. Spray-Rite Service Corp.
465 U.S. 752 (1984)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
To prove a vertical price-fixing conspiracy under Section 1 of the Sherman Act, a terminated distributor must present evidence that tends to exclude the possibility that the manufacturer and non-terminated distributors were acting independently. Evidence of termination following complaints from other distributors is, by itself, insufficient to prove a conspiracy.
Facts:
- Monsanto Co. was a manufacturer of agricultural herbicides.
- Spray-Rite Service Corp. was a large, authorized wholesale distributor of Monsanto's products from 1957 to 1968, operating as a 'discount operation' with low margins.
- In 1967, Monsanto implemented new, stricter criteria for renewing its one-year distributorship contracts.
- Throughout their relationship, Monsanto received numerous complaints from other distributors about Spray-Rite's price-cutting practices.
- In October 1968, Monsanto declined to renew Spray-Rite's distributorship.
- Monsanto stated that its decision was based on Spray-Rite's failure to satisfy the new criteria, specifically its failure to hire trained salesmen and adequately promote sales to dealers.
- After its distributorship was terminated, Spray-Rite found it difficult to purchase Monsanto's products from other distributors.
Procedural Posture:
- Spray-Rite Service Corp. sued Monsanto Co. in the U.S. District Court for violation of § 1 of the Sherman Act.
- The case was tried to a jury, which found through special interrogatories that Monsanto had terminated Spray-Rite pursuant to a price-fixing conspiracy with other distributors.
- The jury awarded Spray-Rite $3.5 million in damages, which the court trebled to $10.5 million.
- Monsanto Co., as appellant, appealed the judgment to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit.
- The Court of Appeals affirmed the District Court's judgment, holding that 'proof of termination following competitor complaints is sufficient to support an inference of concerted action.'
- The U.S. Supreme Court granted Monsanto's petition for a writ of certiorari to resolve a conflict among the circuit courts.
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 evidence that a manufacturer terminated a price-cutting distributor after receiving complaints from other distributors, by itself, suffice to create a jury question of an illegal price-fixing conspiracy under Section 1 of the Sherman Act?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Powell
No. Evidence that a manufacturer terminated a price-cutting distributor in response to or following complaints by other distributors is not, by itself, sufficient to prove a vertical price-fixing conspiracy. To survive a motion for a directed verdict, the plaintiff must present evidence that tends to exclude the possibility that the manufacturer and other distributors were acting independently. There must be direct or circumstantial evidence of a 'conscious commitment to a common scheme designed to achieve an unlawful objective.' Distributor complaints are a normal part of business and allowing an inference of conspiracy from them alone would deter legitimate conduct and undermine the principle from United States v. Colgate & Co. that a manufacturer can unilaterally choose with whom to deal. While the Court of Appeals applied the wrong standard, the Supreme Court affirmed its judgment because, under the correct, higher standard, Spray-Rite had presented sufficient additional evidence for a jury to find a conspiracy, including testimony about direct threats to other distributors and a distributor newsletter implying a price-maintenance agreement.
Concurring - Justice Brennan
Yes, I agree with the Court's application of the law and its judgment. I write separately to emphasize that the Court correctly adheres to the 73-year-old precedent of Dr. Miles Medical Co. v. John D. Park & Sons Co., which holds that vertical price-fixing agreements are per se illegal. Although the Solicitor General urged the Court to overrule Dr. Miles, Congress has not acted to do so, and therefore, the Court should not depart from its long-standing interpretation of the Sherman Act.
Analysis:
This case establishes the 'Monsanto standard,' which significantly heightens the evidentiary burden for plaintiffs alleging vertical price-fixing conspiracies in distributor-termination cases. The decision protects manufacturers' autonomy under the Colgate doctrine, allowing them to communicate with distributors and make independent business decisions without constant fear of antitrust litigation arising from mere complaints. By requiring evidence that 'tends to exclude the possibility' of independent action, the Court created a more difficult but clearer standard for distinguishing between lawful unilateral conduct and unlawful concerted action. This standard makes it harder for plaintiffs to get to a jury, thereby reducing the risk that pro-competitive or neutral business practices will be chilled by the threat of treble damages.
Unlock the full brief for Monsanto Co. v. Spray-Rite Service Corp.