16 C.F.R. § 240.14
Meeting competition
A seller charged with discrimination in violation of sections 2(d) and (e) may defend its actions by showing that particular payments were made or services furnished in good faith to meet equally high payments or equivalent services offered or supplied by a competing seller. This defense is available with respect to payments or services offered on an area-wide basis, to those offered to new as well as old customers, and regardless of whether the discrimination has been caused by a decrease or an increase in the payments or services offered. A seller must reasonably believe that its offers are necessary to meet a competitor's offer.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 3
cases, 1974–2008 · leading case: Rickles, Inc. v. Frances Denney Corp., 508 F. Supp. 4 (D. Mass. 1980).
Rickles, Inc. v. Frances Denney Corp., 508 F. Supp. 4 (D. Mass. 1980). “2d 64 ; 16 C.F.R. § 240.14 (1980). “Neither § 2(d) nor § 2(e) can give rise to a private cause of action against a buyer.”
Alterman Foods, Inc. v. Fed. Trade Comm'n, 497 F.2d 993 (5th Cir. 1974). “2d 1222 (1968); Commission Guide 14, 16 C.F.R. § 240.14 (1974) (FTC Guides for Advertising Allowances and Other Merchandising Payments and Services).”
Ventimiglia v. AT & T YELLOW PAGES, 543 F. Supp. 2d 1038 (E.D. Mo. 2008). “The Court also notes that Plaintiffs cite to 16 C.F.R. 240.14 in support of their claim under this act.”
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.