United States v. Arnold, Schwinn & Co.
388 U.S. 365 (1967)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Once a manufacturer sells its product, parting with title, dominion, and risk, any effort to impose territorial or customer restrictions on the resale of that product is a per se violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act. However, if the manufacturer retains ownership of the goods, as in a consignment or agency relationship, such vertical restrictions are judged under the rule of reason.
Facts:
- Arnold, Schwinn & Company ('Schwinn') was a prominent bicycle manufacturer facing increasing competition from mass merchandisers like Sears.
- In 1952, to compete more effectively, Schwinn instituted a new distribution program.
- Schwinn franchised approximately 5,500 retail dealers and assigned its 22 wholesale distributors to exclusive geographic territories.
- Distributors were contractually obligated to sell Schwinn bicycles only to franchised retailers located within their assigned territory.
- Franchised retailers were permitted to sell only to consumers and were prohibited from selling to unfranchised dealers, such as discount houses.
- Schwinn utilized three main distribution methods: 1) direct sales to distributors, who then resold to retailers; 2) consignment or agency arrangements with distributors; and 3) the 'Schwinn Plan,' where Schwinn shipped directly to retailers and paid a commission to the distributor who took the order.
Procedural Posture:
- The United States filed a civil antitrust lawsuit in the U.S. District Court against Arnold, Schwinn & Company ('Schwinn') and others, alleging violations of Section 1 of the Sherman Act.
- The District Court held a 70-day trial.
- The District Court rejected the government's price-fixing charge.
- The District Court ruled that Schwinn's territorial restrictions on distributors were unlawful per se for products that the distributors had purchased from Schwinn.
- The District Court also ruled that these restrictions were not unlawful where the distributor acted as an agent or consignee for Schwinn.
- The United States, as the appellant, appealed the District Court's judgment directly to the U.S. Supreme Court, challenging the legality of the restrictions in the agency and consignment arrangements.
- Schwinn, as the appellee, did not appeal the ruling that invalidated restraints on products it had sold to distributors.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Is it a per se violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act for a manufacturer to impose territorial and customer restrictions on distributors and retailers after the manufacturer has sold the products and parted with title, dominion, and risk?
Opinions:
Majority - Mr. Justice Fortas
Yes. Once a manufacturer has parted with dominion over its product by selling it, its effort to restrict the territory or persons to whom the product may be transferred is a per se violation of § 1 of the Sherman Act. The Court distinguished between situations where Schwinn sold its products and those where it retained ownership. Where Schwinn sold bicycles to distributors, any vertical restraint on the territory of resale or the class of customers was deemed an illegal restraint on alienation and thus per se unlawful. However, where Schwinn retained title, dominion, and risk, as in its agency, consignment, and Schwinn Plan arrangements, the vertical restrictions were permissible under the rule of reason because they were justified by competitive pressures from larger rivals and did not unreasonably restrain competition in the overall bicycle market.
Concurring-in-part-and-dissenting-in-part - Mr. Justice Stewart
No. The Court's rigid distinction between sale and non-sale transactions is illogical and ignores economic realities, and therefore the restrictions should be analyzed under the rule of reason in all instances. The opinion agreed with the majority that Schwinn's overall marketing system was reasonable and pro-competitive. However, it dissented from the creation of a new per se rule based on the 'ancient' and irrelevant common-law rule against restraints on alienation. The dissent argued that the competitive effect of the restrictions is the same regardless of whether the transaction is labeled a 'sale' or an 'agency,' and that applying a formalistic title-based test would lead to the dismantling of legitimate and competitive distribution systems or force manufacturers toward vertical integration.
Analysis:
This decision established the 'Schwinn rule,' creating a sharp, formalistic distinction in antitrust law for vertical restraints based on whether title to the goods had passed from the manufacturer. It made any post-sale restriction on territory or customers a per se violation, regardless of market impact, while allowing identical restrictions in agency or consignment arrangements to be judged by the more lenient rule of reason. This bright-line rule significantly influenced distribution practices for a decade but was criticized for its rigid focus on legal form over economic substance. The precedent was ultimately overturned by Continental T.V., Inc. v. GTE Sylvania Inc. in 1977, which eliminated the title-based distinction and applied the rule of reason to all non-price vertical restraints.
Unlock the full brief for United States v. Arnold, Schwinn & Co.