| Albrecht v. Herald Co. | |
|---|---|
 | |
| Argued November 9, 1967 Decided March 4, 1968 | |
| Full case name | Lester J. Albrecht v. Herald Co., DBA Globe-Democrat Publishing Co. |
| Citations | 390 U.S. 145 (more) 88 S. Ct. 869; 19 L. Ed. 2d 998 |
| Case history | |
| Prior | Certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit |
| Holding | |
| Wholesalers cannot require franchisees and retailers of their products to sell items at a certain price. | |
| Court membership | |
| |
| Case opinions | |
| Majority | White, joined by Warren, Black, Brennan, Fortas, Marshall |
| Concurrence | Douglas |
| Dissent | Harlan |
| Dissent | Stewart, joined by Harlan |
| Laws applied | |
| Clayton Antitrust Act, 15 U.S.C. § 15; Sherman Antitrust Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1 | |
Overruled by | |
| State Oil Co. v. Khan (1997) | |
Albrecht v. Herald Co., 390 U.S. 145 (1968), was a decision by the United States Supreme Court, which reaffirmed the law (as it then was) that fixing a maximum price was illegal per se. This rule was reversed in 1997 by State Oil Co. v. Khan, which held that maximum price-setting was not inherently anti-competitive and not always a violation of antitrust law, and should therefore be evaluated for legality under the rule of reason rather than a per se rule.
Albrecht drew heavy criticism by economists who asserted that maximum price fixing actually increases consumer welfare, which they considered to be a primary goal of antitrust.[1][2]
- ^ Easterbrook, Frank H. (1981). "Maximum Price Fixing". University of Chicago Law Review. 48 (4): 886–910. doi:10.2307/1599297. JSTOR 1599297.
- ^ Blair, Roger; Fesmire, James (1986). "Maximum Price Fixing and the Goals of Antitrust". Syracuse Law Review. 37 (1): 43–77.