16 C.F.R. § 240.1

Purpose of the Guides

Read at: eCFRecfr.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov CasesGoogle Scholar

The purpose of these Guides is to provide assistance to businesses seeking to comply with sections 2(d) and (e) of the Robinson-Patman Act (the “Act”). The guides are based on the language of the statute, the legislative history, administrative and court decisions, and the purposes of the Act. Although the Guides are consistent with the case law, the Commission has sought to provide guidance in some areas where no definitive guidance is provided by the case law. The Guides are what their name implies—guidelines for compliance with the law. They do not have the force of law. They do not confer any rights on any person and do not operate to bind the FTC or the public.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 4 cases (2 in the last 5 years), 2004–2023 · leading case: Lewis v. Philip Morris Inc., 355 F.3d 515 (6th Cir. 2004).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Lewis v. Philip Morris Inc., 355 F.3d 515 (6th Cir. 2004). · cites it 2× “16 C.F.R. § 240.1 et seq. Although, these guidelines do not have the force of law, see 16 C.”

Woodman's Food Mkt., Inc. v. Clorox Co., 833 F.3d 743 (7th Cir. 2016). “124 (1944)); 16 C.F.R. § 240.1 (stating that FTC interpretations of the Act “do not have the force of law”).”

U.S. Wholesale Outlet & Distr. v. Innovation Ventures, LLC, 89 F.4th 1126 (9th Cir. 2023). “” 2 Although the FTC Guides that “provide assistance to businesses seeking to comply with sections 2(d) and 2(e),” 16 C.F.R. § 240.1 , do not have the force of law, “we approach the [Guides] with the deference due the agency charged with day-to-day administration of the Act,”…”

U.S. Wholesale Outlet & Distr. v. Innovation Ventures, LLC (9th Cir. 2023). “” it is “sufficient” to prove that: (1) one customer has outlets in “geographical proximity” to those of the other; (2) the two customers “purchased goods of the same grade and quality from the seller within approximately the same period of time”; and (3) the two customers are 1…”

Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.