United States v. Topco Associates, Inc.
405 U.S. 596 (1972)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Horizontal territorial limitations, which are agreements between competitors at the same level of the market to allocate territories and minimize competition, are per se illegal under Section 1 of the Sherman Act, regardless of any claimed business justifications or pro-competitive effects.
Facts:
- Topco Associates, Inc. (Topco) is a cooperative association of approximately 25 small to medium-sized independent regional supermarket chains.
- The primary purpose of the association is to serve as a purchasing agent for its members, allowing them to procure and sell goods under the private Topco brand to compete with larger national chains.
- The member chains, who are competitors, own and control Topco, with its board of directors drawn from the executives of the member chains.
- When a supermarket chain applies for membership, it must specify a territory, and approval requires a vote of the existing members, giving nearby members a de facto veto over potential competitors.
- Upon joining, each member chain receives a license to sell Topco-brand products, which is almost always exclusive to a specific geographic territory.
- Members are prohibited by the association's bylaws from selling Topco-brand products outside their licensed territories.
- Topco's rules also restricted members from selling Topco products at wholesale without special permission from the association, which was often denied after consulting with other members whose businesses might be affected.
Procedural Posture:
- The United States brought an action for injunctive relief against Topco Associates, Inc. in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois.
- The government's complaint alleged that Topco and its members violated Section 1 of the Sherman Act by conspiring to divide marketing territories.
- Following a trial on the merits, the District Court entered judgment for the defendant, Topco.
- The District Court found that while the practices were anti-competitive in regards to Topco-brand products, they were outweighed by the increased ability of Topco members to compete with national chains, thus being consistent with the purposes of antitrust law.
- The United States, as the losing party, appealed the District Court's decision 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 horizontal agreement among competing grocery chains to allocate exclusive territories for the sale of a private-label brand they jointly control constitute a per se violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act?
Opinions:
Majority - Mr. Justice Marshall
Yes, a horizontal agreement among competing grocery chains to allocate exclusive territories for the sale of a private-label brand they jointly control constitutes a per se violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act. This arrangement is a classic horizontal restraint where competitors at the same level of the market structure agree to allocate territories to minimize competition. The Court has consistently held that such "naked restraints of trade with no purpose except stifling of competition" are per se illegal. The Court rejected the District Court's 'rule of reason' analysis, stating that it is not the role of the judiciary to weigh the potential pro-competitive benefits in one market (inter-brand competition) against the clear anti-competitive harm in another (intra-brand competition). Such complex economic policy decisions are the province of Congress, not the courts. This case is analogous to United States v. Sealy, Inc., and any doubt that horizontal territorial limitations are per se violations is removed today.
Dissenting - Mr. Chief Justice Burger
No, a horizontal agreement among competing grocery chains to allocate exclusive territories for the sale of a private-label brand they jointly control should not be considered a per se violation under these circumstances. The majority establishes a new per se rule without proper economic analysis and contrary to the District Court's findings. The restraints were not naked agreements to eliminate competition but were ancillary to the lawful and pro-competitive purpose of allowing small chains to create a private-label brand and compete effectively against national chains. The court should have applied the rule of reason, which would have shown that the arrangement, on balance, promoted competition in the supermarket industry. This decision will ultimately harm consumers by undermining the ability of smaller retailers to offer lower-priced private-label goods.
Concurring - Mr. Justice Blackmun
Yes, under existing precedent, a horizontal agreement among competing grocery chains to allocate exclusive territories for the sale of a private-label brand they jointly control constitutes a per se violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act. While acknowledging the 'anomalous' result that the decision will likely harm competition by making it harder for small chains to compete against larger ones, the per se rule against such conduct is too firmly established to oppose. This creates a situation where the legal outcome seems at odds with the public interest. Relief from this rigid rule, if any is to be had, must come from Congress through legislation, not from the Court.
Analysis:
This decision solidified the Supreme Court's unwavering application of the per se rule against horizontal market division. It definitively rejected the use of a 'rule of reason' defense that a horizontal restraint is justified because it promotes inter-brand competition, even if it eliminates intra-brand competition. The case establishes that courts will not engage in a complex economic balancing act to determine if a horizontal territorial restraint is 'on balance' good for the market. This creates a bright-line, predictable rule for businesses but has been criticized for being overly rigid and potentially stifling arrangements that could be pro-competitive overall, especially for smaller market participants trying to challenge dominant firms.
Unlock the full brief for United States v. Topco Associates, Inc.