15 U.S.C. § 13

Discrimination in price, services, or facilities

Read at: OLRCuscode.house.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov JustiaTitle 15 CasesGoogle Scholar
(a) Price; selection of customers

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, where either or any of the purchases involved in such discrimination are in commerce, where such commodities are sold for use, consumption, or resale within the United States or any Territory thereof or the District of Columbia or any insular possession or other place under the jurisdiction of the United States, and where the effect of such discrimination 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: Provided, however, That the Federal Trade Commission may, after due investigation and hearing to all interested parties, fix and establish quantity limits, and revise the same as it finds necessary, as to particular commodities or classes of commodities, where it finds that available purchasers in greater quantities are so few as to render differentials on account thereof unjustly discriminatory or promotive of monopoly in any line of commerce; and the foregoing shall then not be construed to permit differentials based on differences in quantities greater than those so fixed and established: 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 seasonal goods, distress sales under court process, or sales in good faith in discontinuance of business in the goods concerned.

(b) Burden of rebutting prima-facie case of discrimination

Upon proof being made, at any hearing on a complaint under this section, that there has been discrimination in price or services or facilities furnished, the burden of rebutting the prima-facie case thus made by showing justification shall be upon the person charged with a violation of this section, and unless justification shall be affirmatively shown, the Commission is authorized to issue an order terminating the discrimination: 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 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) Payment or acceptance of commission, brokerage, or other compensation

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, either to the other party to such transaction or to an agent, representative, or other intermediary therein where such intermediary is acting in fact for or in behalf, or is subject to the direct or indirect control, of any party to such transaction other than the person by whom such compensation is so granted or paid.

(d) Payment for services or facilities for processing or sale

It shall be unlawful for any person engaged in commerce to pay or contact 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) Furnishing services or facilities for processing, handling, etc.

It shall be unlawful for any person 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) Knowingly inducing or receiving discriminatory price

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.

(Oct. 15, 1914, ch. 323, § 2, 38 Stat. 730; June 19, 1936, ch. 592, § 1, 49 Stat. 1526.)Editorial NotesAmendments

1936—Act June 19, 1936, amended section generally.

Statutory Notes and Related SubsidiariesShort Title

Act June 19, 1936, which amended this section and added sections 13a, 13b, and 21a of this title, is popularly known as the Robinson-Patman Act, as the Robinson-Patman Antidiscrimination Act, and also as the Robinson-Patman Price Discrimination Act.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 1,691 cases (52 in the last 5 years), 1929–2026 · leading case: Texaco Inc. v. Hasbrouck
Texaco Inc. v. Hasbrouck (1990) scotus · cites it 20× “1526 , 15 U. S. C. § 13 , alleging that the distributor discounts violated § 2(a) of the Act, 15 U.”
Brooke Group Ltd. v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp. (1993) scotus · cites it 10× “1526 , 15 U. S. C. § 13 (a), which alleged illegal price discrimination between Brown & Williamson's full-priced branded cigarettes and its lowpriced generics.”
Volvo Trucks North America, Inc. v. Reeder-Simco GMC, Inc. (2006) scotus · cites it 10× “1526 , 15 U.S.C. § 13 (Robinson-Patman Act or Act), and the Arkansas Franchise Practices Act, Ark.”
Jefferson County Pharmaceutical Ass'n, Inc. v. Abbott Laboratories (1983) scotus · cites it 15× “1526 , 15 U. S. C. §§ 13 (a) and (f). Petitioner contends that the respondent manufacturers violated § 2(a) [1] by selling their products to the University's two pharmacies and to Cooper Green Hospital Pharmacy at prices lower than those charged petitioner's members for like…”
May Department Store v. Graphic Process Company, and Bel-Aire & Associates, Inc. (1980) ca9 · cites it 12× “INTRODUCTION This is a commercial bribery action for treble damages under the Clayton Act as *1213 amended by section 2(c) of the RobinsonPatman Act, 15 U.S.C. § 13 (c). 1 The district court determined, without an opinion, that transactions between the parties were sales of…”
Norris v. Hearst Trust (2007) ca5 · cites it 4× “§ 15 (a)) and the Robinson Patman Act ( 15 U.S.C. § 13 (a)).” 13 The complaint alleges that the plaintiffs, until their here complained of termination “in the late 1990s”, were and for many years had been, pursuant to contracts with Hearst, distributors of the Houston Chronicle,…”
Lewis v. Philip Morris Inc. (2004) ca6 · cites it 14× “In response to criticism that the section 2 of the Clayton Act, as amended by the Robinson- Clayton Act did not protect small retail stores from the Patman Act, 15 U.S.C. §§ 13 (a), (d), and (e) (the “Act”), concentrated buying power of larger chain stores, Congress alleging…”
United States v. United States Gypsum Co. (1978) scotus · cites it 4× “B Section 2 (a) of the Clayton Act, as amended by the Robinson-Patman Act, 15 U. S. C. § 13 (a) (1976 ed.), embodies a general prohibition of price discrimination between buyers when an injury to competition is the consequence.”
Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co. v. Federal Trade Commission (1979) scotus · cites it 8× “1526 , 15 U. S. C. § 13 (f), [1] by knowingly inducing or receiving illegal price discriminations from the Borden Co.”
P. David Bailey v. Allgas, Inc. (2002) ca11 · cites it 4× “6 They alleged Allgas had engaged in price discrimination in violation of the Robinson-Patman Act, 15 U.S.C. § 13 . 7 The Baileys also put forward a number of state law claims, including a claim for tortious interference with a business or contractual relationship.”
Drug Mart Pharmacy Corp. v. American Home Products Corp. (2007) nyed · cites it 17× “56 dismissing the representative plaintiffs’ claims under Section 2(a) of the Robinson-Patman Act, 15 U.S.C. § 13 (a) (the “Act”). The designated defendants (hereinafter “designated defendants” or “defendants”) seek summary judgment or partial summary judgment on four bases.”
ABC International Traders, Inc. v. Matsushita Electric Corp. of America (1997) cal · cites it 10× “Section 2 *1255 of the federal Clayton Act of 1914 forbids certain types of price discrimination in interstate commerce “where the effect of such discrimination may be substantially to lessen competition or tend to create a monopoly in any line of commerce.”
— 15 U.S.C. § 13(A) — 1 case
— 15 U.S.C. § 13(a) — 29 cases
— 15 U.S.C. § 13(b) — 4 cases
— 15 U.S.C. § 13(c) — 6 cases
— 15 U.S.C. § 13(d) — 6 cases
— 15 U.S.C. § 13(e) — 2 cases
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.