Kentucky Revised Statutes

Ky. Rev. Stat. § 365.020 (2026)

Price discrimination between localities prohibited -- Exceptions

✓ current as of May 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section KY-LRCapps.legislature.ky.gov JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

(1) No person doing business in this state and engaged in the production, manufacture, distribution or sale of any commodity or product, or service or output of a service trade, of general use or consumption, or the product or service of any public utility, with the intent to destroy the competition of any regular established dealer in such commodity, product or service, or to prevent the competition of any person who in good faith intends and attempts to become such dealer, shall discriminate between different sections, communities or cities, or portions thereof or locations therein, in this state, by selling or furnishing such commodity, product or service at a lower rate in one section, community or city, or any portion thereof or location therein, than in another, after making allowance for difference, if any, in the grade or quality, and in the actual cost of transportation from the point of production, if a raw product or commodity, or from the point of manufacture, if a manufactured product or commodity. The inhibition against locality discrimination shall embrace any scheme of special rebates, collateral contracts or any device of any nature whereby such discrimination is, in substance or fact, effected in violation of the spirit and intent of this section.

(2) Motion picture films when delivered and under a lease to motion picture houses shall not be deemed a commodity or product of general use or consumption under this section. This section is not intended to prohibit the meeting in good faith of a competitive rate, or to prevent a reasonable classification of service by public utilities for the purpose of establishing rates. History: Recodified 1942 Ky. Acts ch. 208, sec. 1, effective October 1, 1942, from Ky. Stat. sec. 4748h-1.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 7 cases (2 in the last 5 years), 1955–2021 · leading case: Jefferson Ice & Fuel Co. v. Grocers Ice & Cold Storage Co., 286 S.W.2d 80 (Ky. Ct. App. 1955).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Jefferson Ice & Fuel Co. v. Grocers Ice & Cold Storage Co., 286 S.W.2d 80 (Ky. Ct. App. 1955). · cites it 4× “070 provides: “(1) Any person may maintain an action to enjoin a continuance of any act in violation of any of the provisions of KRS 365.020 to 365.050, and if injured thereby for the recovery of damages.”

Kentucky Milk Mktg. & Anti-Monopoly Comm'n v. Borden Co., 456 S.W.2d 831 (Ky. Ct. App. 1970). “He reasoned that since Kentucky had an Unfair Trade Practices Act, KRS 365.020, etc., which in effect regulated destructive competition in the production, manufacture and distribution of all commodities, and since milk was a commodity within the terms of this Act, the…”

Louisa Coca-Cola Bottling Co. v. Pepsi-Cola Metro. Bottling Co., 94 F. Supp. 2d 804 (E.D. Ky. 1999). “§ 15 ; KRS 365.020. Count III (tying agreements): Pepsi-Metro denies retailers its Pepsi products unless they also to agree Pepsi’s snack foods and other products and also exclude Louisa Coke’s products in violation of 15 U.”

Belfry Coal Corp. v. East Kentucky Beverage Co., 294 S.W.2d 539 (Ky. Ct. App. 1956). · cites it 3× “•This is an appeal from a judgment which denied appellant, Belfry Coal Corporation, injunctive relief and -damages-'-under KRS 365.020. The - language of this' statute is involved but, when paraphrased to meet the facts of this instant case, it means: *540 No person who…”

Mitchco Int'l, Inc. v. Commonwealth of Kentucky (Through Its Sec'y of Educ. & Workforce Dev., & Its Sec'y of Fin. & Admin. (Ky. Ct. App. 2021). · cites it 3× “This cause of action derives from KRS 365.020, KRS 365.050, and KRS 365.060.”

Warfield Tobacco, Inc. v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., 34 F. Supp. 2d 1050 (E.D. Ky. 1999). · cites it 4× “Plaintiff claims that RJR’s refusal to offer buy-downs in its store violates KRS § 365.020 and KRS § 365.050 because said refusal constitutes discriminatory pricing with the intent to destroy plaintiffs ability to compete in the retail tobacco business.”

Campus Book Co., Inc. v. McGraw-Hill Global Educ. Holdings, LLC (S.D.N.Y. 2021). “; the Kentucky Unfair Trade Practices Act (“KUTPA”), Ky. Rev. Stat. Ann. §§ 365.020 , et seq.; and the New Mexico Price Discrimination Act (“NMPDA”), N.”

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.