Idaho Code

Idaho Code § 48-202 (2026)

Discrimination unlawful — Differentials — Customer selection — Price changes — Rebutting prima facie case — Commissions or brokerages prohibited — Customer discrimination or receipt of discrimination prohibited. 

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section IClegislature.idaho.gov Justiaon Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

Discrimination unlawful — Differentials — Customer selection — Price changes — Rebutting prima facie case — Commissions or brokerages prohibited — Customer discrimination or receipt of discrimination prohibited. 

(a) It shall be unlawful for any person engaged in commerce, in the course of such commerce, either directly or indirectly, to discriminate in price between different purchasers of commodities of like grade and quality or to discriminate in price between different sections, communities or cities or portions thereof or between different locations in such sections, communities, cities or portions thereof in this state, where the effect of such discriminations may be substantially to lessen competition or tend to create a monopoly in any line of commerce, or to injure, destroy, or prevent competition with any person who either grants or knowingly receives the benefit of such discrimination, or with customers of either of them: provided, that nothing herein contained shall prevent differentials which make only due allowance for differences in the cost of manufacture, sale, or delivery, resulting from the differing methods or quantities in which such commodities are to such purchasers sold or delivered: and provided further, that nothing herein contained shall prevent persons engaged in selling goods, wares, or merchandise in commerce from selecting their own customers in bona fide transactions and not in restraint of trade: and provided further, that nothing herein contained shall prevent price changes from time to time where in response to changing conditions affecting the market for or the marketability of the goods concerned, such as but not limited to actual or imminent deterioration of perishable goods, obsolescence of seasonable goods, distress sales under court process, or sales in good faith in discontinuance of business in the goods concerned.

(b)  Upon proof being made, in any suit or other proceeding in which any violation of this act may be at issue, that there has been discrimination in price, or in services or facilities furnished, or in payment for services or facilities to be rendered, the burden of rebutting the prima facie case thus made by showing justification shall be upon the person charged with such violation: provided, however, that nothing herein contained shall prevent a seller rebutting the prima facie case thus made by showing that his lower price, or the payment for or furnishing of services or facilities to any purchaser or purchasers was made in good faith to meet an equally low price of a competitor or the services or facilities furnished by a competitor.
(c)  It shall be unlawful for any person engaged in commerce, in the course of such commerce, to pay or grant, or to receive or accept, anything of value as a commission, brokerage, or other compensation, or any allowance or discount in lieu thereof, except for services rendered in connection with the sale or purchase of goods, wares, or merchandise; provided, however, that in all such transactions of sale and purchase it shall be unlawful for either party to such transaction to pay or grant anything of value as a commission, brokerage or other compensation, or any allowance or discount in lieu thereof, to the other party to the transaction or to any agent, representative, or other intermediary therein, where such agent, representative, or other intermediary is acting in fact for or in behalf, or is subject to the direct or indirect control, of the said other party to such transaction.
(d)  It shall be unlawful for any person engaged in commerce, in the course of such commerce, to pay or contract for the payment of anything of value to or for the benefit of a customer of such person in the course of such commerce as compensation or in consideration for any services or facilities furnished by or through such customer in connection with the processing, handling, sale, or offering for sale of any products or commodities manufactured, sold, or offered for sale by such person, unless such payment or consideration is available on proportionally equal terms to all other customers competing in the distribution of such products or commodities.
(e)  It shall be unlawful for any person engaged in commerce, in the course of such commerce, to discriminate in favor of one purchaser against another purchaser or purchasers of a commodity bought for resale, with or without processing, by contracting to furnish or furnishing, or by contributing to the furnishing of, any services or facilities connected with the processing, handling, sale or offering for sale of such commodity so purchased upon terms not accorded to all purchasers on proportionally equal terms.
(f)  It shall be unlawful for any person engaged in commerce, in the course of such commerce, knowingly to induce or receive a discrimination in price which is prohibited by this section.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 6 cases, 1964–1993 · leading case: Fitzgerald v. Walker, 826 P.2d 1301 (Idaho 1992).
Fitzgerald v. Walker, 826 P.2d 1301 (Idaho 1992). · cites it 4× “Taking them in reverse, the Little Robinson-Patman Act [I.C. § 48-202] and that the anti-price discrimination—antipredatory price discrimination.”
Carlock v. Pillsbury Co., 719 F. Supp. 791 (D. Minnesota 1989). “Interestingly, plaintiffs have not assert ed a cause of action under Idaho’s counterpart to the Robinson-Patman Act, Idaho Code § 48-202 . Such a claim would fail, in any event, as discussed in previous sections, due to plaintiffs’ failure to present evidence on requisite…”
Rangen, Inc., a Corp., Buhl Feed & Ice Co., a Corp., & Elwood D. Grimes v. Sterling Nelson & Sons, Inc., a Corp., 351 F.2d 851 (9th Cir. 1965). “Plaintiff’s fourth claim is based upon Idaho Code, § 48-202(c) (1948), which is virtually a counterpart of section 2(c) of the Clayton Act.”
Sterling Nelson & Sons, Inc. v. Rangen, Inc., 235 F. Supp. 393 (D. Idaho 1964). · cites it 2× “STATE LAW FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION Inasmuch as we have concluded that the misconduct of the defendants, who were engaged in commerce, occurred in the course of commerce, it is inappropriate and unnecessary to consider the application of Idaho’s “Little RobinsonPatman Act” (Section…”
Jackson v. Wood, 859 P.2d 378 (Idaho Ct. App. 1993). · cites it 2× “For the Woods to claim on appeal that the amount is in error ignores not only the stipulation, but also the district court’s conclusion that Jackson had met his burden of rebutting the Woods’ prima facie claim of a violation of I.C. § 48-202 dealing with discriminatory pricing.”
W. J. Seufert Land Co. v. Nat'l Restaurant Supply Co., 511 P.2d 363 (Or. 1973). “060 was not precisely the same as that of Congress in enacting § 2 (c). Three other states have also adopted similar statutes, but none of them, including court decisions interpreting them, are helpful on the question to be decided in this case.”
— Idaho Code § 48-202(c) — 1 case
Rangen, Inc., a Corp., Buhl Feed & Ice Co., a Corp., & Elwood D. Grimes v. Sterling Nelson & Sons, Inc., a Corp., 351 F.2d 851 (9th Cir. 1965). “Plaintiff’s fourth claim is based upon Idaho Code, § 48-202(c) (1948), which is virtually a counterpart of section 2(c) of the Clayton 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.