White Motor Co. v. United States
9 L. Ed. 2d 738, 1963 U.S. LEXIS 2578, 372 U.S. 253 (1963)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Vertical territorial and customer restrictions imposed by a manufacturer on its distributors and dealers are not per se violations of the Sherman Act; their legality must be evaluated under the rule of reason, which requires a factual inquiry into their actual impact on competition.
Facts:
- The White Motor Company manufactures trucks and parts, which it sells through a network of distributors and dealers.
- White's dealership agreements included a 'territorial clause' granting each distributor the exclusive right to sell trucks within a specific geographic territory.
- The territorial clause also forbade distributors from selling trucks to any individual, firm, or corporation that did not have a place of business or purchasing headquarters within that specified territory.
- The agreements also contained a 'customer clause' that prohibited distributors and their dealers from selling trucks to any Federal or State government entity without White's specific written permission.
- White argued that these restrictions were necessary to compel its dealers to concentrate their efforts, thereby allowing White to compete more effectively against larger truck manufacturers.
- White also contended that it needed to reserve governmental and 'fleet' accounts for itself to ensure these large, important customers were serviced properly.
Procedural Posture:
- The United States filed a civil antitrust suit against The White Motor Company in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio.
- The United States moved for summary judgment, arguing White's contractual restrictions were per se violations of the Sherman Act.
- The District Court granted the United States' motion for summary judgment.
- The White Motor Company, as appellant, filed a direct appeal of the District Court's judgment 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 vertical arrangement by a manufacturer, which restricts the territories in which its distributors and dealers may sell and the customers to whom they may sell, constitute a per se violation of the Sherman Act?
Opinions:
Majority - Mr. Justice Douglas
No. Vertical territorial and customer restrictions are not per se illegal because the Court lacks sufficient experience with their economic and business effects to declare them inherently anticompetitive. Unlike horizontal arrangements, which are naked restraints of trade, vertical arrangements might have redeeming virtues, such as enabling a smaller manufacturer to compete more effectively or to enter a new market. Therefore, the legality of these restraints must be determined under the rule of reason after a full trial to assess their actual competitive impact, making summary judgment inappropriate.
Dissenting - Mr. Justice Clark
Yes. These vertical arrangements are per se violations of the Sherman Act because their intended and actual effect is to eliminate competition, which is functionally identical to a horizontal market division. The restrictions create 'economic islands' for each dealer, insulating them from intrabrand competition and allowing them to set prices and terms without competitive pressure from other White dealers. White's justification of business necessity to compete with larger rivals is contrary to the public policy of the Sherman Act, and remanding for a trial is a futile act that merely delays the inevitable conclusion that the contracts are illegal.
Concurring - Mr. Justice Brennan
No. While it would be premature to declare these restrictions per se illegal, the territorial and customer limitations present distinct analytical problems. Territorial limitations, while suspect, may be justifiable if they are shown at trial to foster inter-brand competition and are no more restrictive than necessary. Customer restrictions, however, are inherently more dangerous as they eliminate all competition between the manufacturer and its distributors for the most desirable accounts and appear to lack pro-competitive justifications. The government should prevail on the customer restrictions unless White proves its distributors were economically incapable of competing for those accounts anyway.
Analysis:
This decision established a landmark distinction between horizontal and vertical restraints in antitrust law. By declining to apply the per se rule of illegality to vertical territorial and customer restrictions, the Court mandated the use of the 'rule of reason' for such non-price vertical arrangements. This holding opened the door for manufacturers to defend these practices by demonstrating pro-competitive effects, such as enhancing inter-brand competition. The case set the stage for decades of development in this area of law, culminating in decisions like United States v. Arnold, Schwinn & Co. and its subsequent overruling by Continental T.V., Inc. v. GTE Sylvania Inc., which solidified the rule of reason's application.
Unlock the full brief for White Motor Co. v. United States