Ask AI
Bill102th CongressFiled Feb 20, 1991Commerce
S. 429

Consumer Protection Against Price-Fixing Act of 1991

Bill journey · stage 1 of 5

Just introduced

Filed
Comm.
Floor
Both
Law

What it doesSummary conference report filed in house (Jun 22, 1992)

Consumer Protection Against Price-Fixing Act of 1991 - Amends the Sherman Act to set forth evidentiary standards for price-fixing actions. Requires the court to allow the issue of concerted action to fix prices to be decided by the trier of fact if there is sufficient evidence from which a trier of fact could reasonably conclude that: (1) the supplier of a good or service received from a competitor of a reseller an express or reasonably implied request or demand that the supplier take steps to curtail or eliminate price competition; and (2) such request or demand was the major reason that the supplier terminated sales or supplies to the reseller, or refused to continue to supply the reseller.

Specifies that for purposes of this Act: (1) no request or demand shall be deemed to constitute the major cause of such termination or refusal to continue to supply unless, at a minimum, there is evidence that persons expressly or impliedly acquiesced to the request or demand, or threatened or took actions (in addition to the termination or refusal to continue to supply at issue in the case) to curtail or eliminate price competition by the claimant or others engaged in the resale of goods or services; and (2) a decision by a person to alter, wholly or in part, its distribution policy through adoption of exclusive distributor outlets or vertical location, customer, or territorial clauses shall not constitute an action to curtail or eliminate price competition.

Directs the court, in making its determination with respect to the existence of a contract, combination, or conspiracy, to consider evidence in rebuttal supporting any actual, bona fide non-price business justification for such termination or refusal to continue to supply.

Prohibits the court from allowing the trier of fact to consider whether an individual and a competitor engaged in concerted action to set prices in violation of this Act if the court determines that the trier of fact could only find concerted action by making implausible inferences.

Provides that the fact that a supplier and a reseller entered into an agreement to establish the resale price of a good or service shall be sufficient to constitute a price fixing violation, except when the agreement is to establish the maximum resale price of a good or service. Specifies that: (1) such maximum resale price agreements shall not be deemed illegal per se, but shall be judged based on their reasonableness, taking into account all relevant factors affecting competition in the relevant market for the good or service that is the subject of the agreement; and (2) an agreement between the seller and the purchaser of a good or service to terminate another purchaser as a dealer or to refuse to continue to supply such other purchaser violates this Act if such purchaser's discount pricing was the major cause of such termination or refusal to continue to supply, regardless of whether or not a specific price or price level is agreed upon.

What just happenedJun 30, 1992

Motion to reconsider laid on the table Agreed to without objection.

Who’s behind it

Sen. Metzenbaum, Howard M. [D-OH](D-OH)Sponsor
31 cosponsors27 D4 R
Read on Congress.gov
31cosponsors1committees49actions147amendments2related bills7subjects
  1. Jun 30, 1992ResolvingDifferencesH41931

    Motion to reconsider laid on the table Agreed to without objection.

  2. Jun 30, 1992ResolvingDifferencesH42510

    On agreeing to the conference report Failed by the Yeas and Nays: 175 - 225 (Roll no. 251).

  3. Jun 30, 1992ResolvingDifferences22000

    Conference report disagreed to in House: On agreeing to the conference report Failed by the Yeas and Nays: 175 - 225 (Roll no. 251).

  4. Jun 30, 1992ResolvingDifferencesH42300

    The previous question was ordered without objection.

  5. Jun 30, 1992FloorH8D000

    DEBATE - The House proceeded with one hour of debate on the conference report.

  6. Jun 30, 1992ResolvingDifferencesH40200

    Mr. Brooks brought up conference report H. Rept. 102-605 for consideration as a privileged matter.

  7. Jun 22, 1992ResolvingDifferencesH25200

    Conference report H. Rept. 102-605 filed.

  8. Jun 22, 1992ResolvingDifferences20900

    Conference report filed: Conference report H. Rept. 102-605 filed.

  9. Jun 18, 1992ResolvingDifferences

    Conferees agreed to file conference report.

  10. Jun 18, 1992ResolvingDifferences20800

    Conference committee actions: Conferees agreed to file conference report.

  11. Mar 19, 1992Floor

    Message on Senate action sent to the House.

  12. Mar 18, 1992ResolvingDifferences

    Senate agreed to request for conference. Appointed conferees. Biden; Kennedy; Metzenbaum; Thurmond; Hatch.

  13. Mar 18, 1992Floor

    Senate disagreed to House amendments by Voice Vote.

  14. Mar 18, 1992NotUsed20500

    Resolving differences -- Senate actions: Senate disagreed to House amendments by Voice Vote.

  15. Oct 16, 1991Floor

    Message on House action received in Senate and held at desk: House amendments to Senate bill and House requests a conference.

  16. Oct 10, 1991FloorH8D000

    Without objection, the Speaker reserved the authority to make additional appointments.

  17. Oct 10, 1991ResolvingDifferencesH41800

    The Chair appointed conferees: Brooks, Edwards (CA), Synar, Fish, and Campbell (CA).

  18. Oct 10, 1991ResolvingDifferencesH41610

    On motion that the House insist upon its amendments, and request a conference Agreed to by voice vote.

  19. Oct 10, 1991ResolvingDifferencesH40130

    Pursuant to the provisions of H. Res. 241, the House moved to insist upon its amendments, and request a conference.

  20. Oct 10, 1991FloorH38310

    Motion to reconsider laid on the table Agreed to without objection.

  21. Oct 10, 1991FloorH38700

    A similar measure H.R. 1470 was laid on the table without objection.

  22. Oct 10, 1991FloorH38800

    The title of the measure was amended. Agreed to without objection.

  23. Oct 10, 1991FloorH37100

    On passage Passed without objection.

  24. Oct 10, 1991Floor8000

    Passed/agreed to in House: On passage Passed without objection.

  25. Oct 10, 1991FloorH34200

    The House struck all after the enacting clause and inserted in lieu thereof the provisions of a similar measure H.R. 1470. Agreed to without objection.

  26. Oct 10, 1991FloorH8D000

    Rule provides for consideration of H.R. 1470 with 1 hour of general debate. Previous question shall be considered as ordered without intervening motions except motion to recommit. Measure will be read by section. Bill is open to amendments. After passage of H.R. 1470, it shall be in order to take from the Speaker's table the bill S. 429 and to consider said bill in the House. It shall then be in order to move to strike all after the enacting clause of said Senate bill and to insert in lieu thereof the provisions of H.R. 1470 as passed by the House. It shall then be in order to move that the House insist on its amendment to S. 429

  27. Oct 10, 1991FloorH30000

    Considered under the provisions of rule H. Res. 241.

  28. Oct 8, 1991FloorH1L210

    Rules Committee Resolution H. Res. 241 Reported to House. Rule provides for consideration of H.R. 1470 and S. 429 with 1 hour of general debate. Previous question shall be considered as ordered without intervening motions except motion to recommit. Measure will be read by section. Bill is open to amendments. After passage of H.R. 1470, it shall be in order to take from the Speaker's table the bill S. 429 and to consider said bill in the House. It shall then be in order to move to strike all after the enacting clause of said Senate bill and to insert in lieu thereof the provisions of H.R. 1470 as passed by the House. It shall then be in order to move that the House insist on its amendment to S. 429

  29. May 14, 1991FloorH15000

    Held at the desk.

  30. May 14, 1991Floor

    Message on Senate action sent to the House.

  31. May 14, 1991FloorH14000

    Received in the House.

  32. May 9, 1991Floor

    Passed Senate with an amendment by Voice Vote.

  33. May 9, 1991Floor17000

    Passed/agreed to in Senate: Passed Senate with an amendment by Voice Vote.

  34. May 9, 1991Floor

    Considered by Senate.

  35. May 8, 1991Floor

    Cloture invoked in Senate by Yea-Nay Vote. 63-35. Record Vote No: 54.

  36. May 8, 1991Floor

    Considered by Senate.

  37. May 7, 1991Floor

    Cloture motion presented in Senate.

  38. May 7, 1991Floor

    Measure laid before Senate by unanimous consent.

  39. May 7, 1991Floor

    Cloture on the motion to proceed invoked in Senate by Yea-Nay Vote. 61-37. Record Vote No: 53.

  40. May 6, 1991Floor

    Motion to proceed considered in Senate.

  41. Apr 25, 1991Floor

    Cloture motion on the motion to proceed presented in Senate.

  42. Apr 25, 1991Floor

    Motion to proceed to consideration of measure made in Senate.

  43. Apr 19, 1991Calendars

    Placed on Senate Legislative Calendar under General Orders. Calendar No. 68.

  44. Apr 19, 1991Committee

    Committee on Judiciary. Reported to Senate by Senator Biden under the authority of the order of Apr 18, 91 without recommendation without amendment. With written report No. 102-42.

    Judiciary Committee
  45. Apr 19, 1991Committee14000

    Committee on Judiciary. Reported to Senate by Senator Biden under the authority of the order of Apr 18, 91 without recommendation without amendment. With written report No. 102-42.

    Judiciary Committee
  46. Mar 21, 1991Committee

    Committee on Judiciary. Ordered to be reported without amendment without recommendation.

    Judiciary Committee
  47. Feb 21, 1991Committee

    Subcommittee on Antitrust, Monopolies and Business. Hearings held. Hearings printed: S.Hrg. 102-368.

    Antitrust, Competition Policy, and Consumer Rights Subcommittee
  48. Feb 20, 1991IntroReferral

    Read twice and referred to the Committee on Judiciary.

    Judiciary Committee
  49. Feb 20, 1991IntroReferral10000

    Introduced in Senate

Conference report filed in HouseJun 22, 199248

Consumer Protection Against Price-Fixing Act of 1991 - Amends the Sherman Act to set forth evidentiary standards for price-fixing actions. Requires the court to allow the issue of concerted action to fix prices to be decided by the trier of fact if there is sufficient evidence from which a trier of fact could reasonably conclude that: (1) the supplier of a good or service received from a competitor of a reseller an express or reasonably implied request or demand that the supplier take steps to curtail or eliminate price competition; and (2) such request or demand was the major reason that the supplier terminated sales or supplies to the reseller, or refused to continue to supply the reseller.

Specifies that for purposes of this Act: (1) no request or demand shall be deemed to constitute the major cause of such termination or refusal to continue to supply unless, at a minimum, there is evidence that persons expressly or impliedly acquiesced to the request or demand, or threatened or took actions (in addition to the termination or refusal to continue to supply at issue in the case) to curtail or eliminate price competition by the claimant or others engaged in the resale of goods or services; and (2) a decision by a person to alter, wholly or in part, its distribution policy through adoption of exclusive distributor outlets or vertical location, customer, or territorial clauses shall not constitute an action to curtail or eliminate price competition.

Directs the court, in making its determination with respect to the existence of a contract, combination, or conspiracy, to consider evidence in rebuttal supporting any actual, bona fide non-price business justification for such termination or refusal to continue to supply.

Prohibits the court from allowing the trier of fact to consider whether an individual and a competitor engaged in concerted action to set prices in violation of this Act if the court determines that the trier of fact could only find concerted action by making implausible inferences.

Provides that the fact that a supplier and a reseller entered into an agreement to establish the resale price of a good or service shall be sufficient to constitute a price fixing violation, except when the agreement is to establish the maximum resale price of a good or service. Specifies that: (1) such maximum resale price agreements shall not be deemed illegal per se, but shall be judged based on their reasonableness, taking into account all relevant factors affecting competition in the relevant market for the good or service that is the subject of the agreement; and (2) an agreement between the seller and the purchaser of a good or service to terminate another purchaser as a dealer or to refuse to continue to supply such other purchaser violates this Act if such purchaser's discount pricing was the major cause of such termination or refusal to continue to supply, regardless of whether or not a specific price or price level is agreed upon.

Passed House amendedOct 10, 199136

Price Fixing Prevention Act of 1991 - Provides that in any civil action alleging a contract, combination, or conspiracy to set, change, or maintain prices (other than a maximum price) under the Sherman Antitrust Act: (1) evidence that a person who sells a good or service to the claimant for resale received from a competitor a communication regarding price competition by the claimant and, in response, terminated the claimant as a buyer (or refused to supply such goods or services) shall be sufficient to raise the inference that such person and such competitor engaged in concerted action to set, change, or maintain prices in violation of such Act (in such case, a termination or refusal to supply is in response to a communication if such communication is a substantial contributing cause of such termination or refusal to supply); (2) the fact that the seller and the purchaser of a good or service entered into an agreement to set, change, or maintain prices shall be sufficient to constitute a violation of such Act; and (3) an agreement between the seller and the purchaser to terminate another purchaser as a dealer or to refuse to supply such other purchaser because of that purchaser's pricing policies shall constitute a violation of such Act, whether or not a specific price level is agreed upon. Makes it a defense to an action under this Act that the defendant was so small in the relevant market as to lack market power. Provides that the provisions with respect to agreements to set, change, or maintain prices (other than a maximum price) shall apply to civil actions commenced before enactment of this Act.

Passed Senate amendedMay 9, 199135

Consumer Protection Against Price-Fixing Act of 1991 - Amends the Sherman Act to set forth evidentiary standards for price-fixing actions. Requires the court to allow the issue of concerted action to fix prices to be decided by the trier of fact if there is sufficient evidence from which a trier of fact could reasonably conclude that: (1) the supplier of a good or service received from a competitor of a reseller an express or reasonably implied request or demand that the supplier take steps to curtail or eliminate price competition; and (2) such request or demand was the major reason that the supplier terminated sales or supplies to the reseller, or refused to continue to supply the reseller.

Specifies that for purposes of this Act: (1) no request or demand shall be deemed to constitute the major cause of such termination or refusal to continue to supply unless, at a minimum, there is evidence that persons expressly or impliedly acquiesced to the request or demand, or threatened or took actions (in addition to the termination or refusal to continue to supply at issue in the case) to curtail or eliminate price competition by the claimant or others engaged in the resale of goods or services; and (2) a decision by a person to alter, wholly or in part, its distribution policy through adoption of exclusive distributor outlets or vertical location, customer, or territorial clauses shall not constitute an action to curtail or eliminate price competition.

Directs the court, in making its determination with respect to the existence of a contract, combination, or conspiracy, to consider evidence in rebuttal supporting any actual, bona fide non-price business justification for such termination or refusal to continue to supply.

Prohibits the court from allowing the trier of fact to consider whether an individual and a competitor engaged in concerted action to set prices in violation of this Act if the court determines that the trier of fact could only find concerted action by making implausible inferences.

Provides that the fact that a supplier and a reseller entered into an agreement to establish the resale price of a good or service shall be sufficient to constitute a price fixing violation, except when the agreement is to establish the maximum resale price of a good or service. Specifies that: (1) such maximum resale price agreements shall not be deemed illegal per se, but shall be judged based on their reasonableness, taking into account all relevant factors affecting competition in the relevant market for the good or service that is the subject of the agreement; and (2) an agreement between the seller and the purchaser of a good or service to terminate another purchaser as a dealer or to refuse to continue to supply such other purchaser violates this Act if such purchaser's discount pricing was the major cause of such termination or refusal to continue to supply, regardless of whether or not a specific price or price level is agreed upon.

Introduced in SenateFeb 20, 199100

Consumer Protection Against Price-Fixing Act of 1991 - Amends the Sherman Act to set forth evidentiary standards for price-fixing actions. Requires the court to allow the issue of concerted action to fix prices to be decided by the trier of fact if there is sufficient evidence from which a trier of fact could reasonably conclude that: (1) the supplier of a good or service received from a competitor of a reseller an express or implied suggestion, request, or demand that the supplier take steps to curtail or eliminate price competition; and (2) such communication was the major reason that the supplier terminated sales or supplies to the reseller.

Prohibits the court from allowing the trier of fact to consider whether an individual and a competitor engaged in concerted action to set prices in violation of this Act if the court determines that the trier of fact could only find concerted action by making implausible inferences.

Provides that the fact that a supplier and a reseller entered into an agreement to establish the resale price of a good or service shall be sufficient to constitute a price fixing violation, except when the agreement is to establish the maximum resale price of a good or service. Specifies that an agreement between the seller and the purchaser of a good or service to terminate another purchaser as a dealer or to refuse to supply such other purchaser because of that purchaser's pricing policies violates this Act, regardless of whether or not a specific price or price level is agreed upon.