7-1-2003 State Action and the Meaning of Agreement Under Sherman Act : An Approach to Hybrid Restraints
John E. Lopatkat,W. H. Page
Abstract:55 The Court analogized the case to Joseph E. Seagram & Sons, Inc. v. Hostetter, 56 which also refused to find facially invalid a state regulation of liquor distribution. The regulation at issue in Hostetter required distributors to file price schedules with the State Liquor Authority along with an "affirmation" that prices listed were as low as prices charged anywhere else in the United States.57 That regulation, according to the Rice Court, merely required the collection of price information to "support" the most-favored-nation affirmations and, as such, did not place "irresistible economic pressure" on distributors to violate Section 1; indeed, the regulation depended upon Section 1 to prevent conspiracies to raise the prices on which the affirmations were based. But the Court did not call the schemes in Rice or Hostetter hybrid restraints. 51 Id. at 661. 52 N. Pac. R.R. v. United States, 356 U.S. 1,5 (1958). 53 See Rice, 458 U.S. at 662 ("The manner in which a distiller utilizes the designation statute and the arrangements a distiller makes with its wholesalers will be subject to Sherman Act analysis under the rule of reason."). 54 Id. at 662 n.8. The Court must have been using the term "pursuant to" in a very loose sense. If a statute authorized, though did not compel, per se illegal behavior, it would be subject to facial pre-emption. The Court apparently has in mind per se illegal conduct that is not prohibited by the statute. To say that such conduct is "pursuant to" the statute is a linguistic stretch. 55 The Court also recognized that, because the facial antitrust challenge to the statue failed, "it is not necessary for us to consider whether the statute may be saved from invalidation under the doctrine of Parker v. Brown." Id. at 662 n.9. 56 384 U.S. 35 (1966). 57 Id. at 39-40. Vol. 20:269, 2003 HeinOnline -20 Yale J. on Reg. 279 2003 State Action and Hybrid Restraints Ordinance and maintained by the Rent Stabilization Board have been unilaterally imposed by government upon landlords to the exclusion of private control." 42 The Court explained that neither a vertical nor a horizontal conspiracy arises when a governmental entity prescribes specific, uniform behavior and private competitors comply. Landlords who comply with "a restraint imposed unilaterally by govemrnment" because of the law's "coercive effect" do not form individual agreements with the government, nor do they form a "conspiracy" among themselves: "There is no meeting of the minds here. 43 But borrowing a term coined by Justice Stevens in Rice v. Norman Williams Co., the Court distinguished this sort of restraint from "hybrid" restraints, those in which "nonmarket mechanisms merely enforce private marketing decisions,, 45 so that "private actors are thus granted a degree of private regulatory power. 4 6 For example, in two prior cases-Midcal and Schwegmann-the Court had condemned state statutes that mandated compliance with resale prices set by suppliers. These restraints, according to the Fisher Court, involved a significant "degree of free participation by private economic actors ' ' 47 and were therefore "quite different from the pure regulatory scheme imposed by Berkeley's Ordinance., 48 They did satisfy the concerted action requirement of Section 1 and, thus, came into conflict with antitrust's prohibition of resale price maintenance.49 We examine some hidden complexities in this characterization more fully in the next section but shelve those questions temporarily in order to explore the history of the Court's use of the hybrid restraints concept. Because Rice was the origin of the critical term "hybrid restraint," it warrants close attention. The Court there upheld against a facial attack California's "designation" statute, which prohibited any state-licensed liquor dealer from importing a brand of liquor unless the distiller of that brand had specifically authorized the dealer to do so. The statute was enacted in response to Oklahoma's liquor laws, which were understood to prohibit a distiller from limiting its sales to selected Oklahoma wholesalers.50 As a result, a distiller's normal ability to control the distribution of its product in California was thwarted, because a California wholesaler could obtain the liquor from an Oklahoma wholesaler. The majority in Rice announced the principle that: 42 Fisher, 475 U.S. at 266. 43 Id. at 267. 44 458 U.S. 654, 665 (1982) (Stevens, J., concurring). 45 Fisher, 475 U.S. at 268. 46 Id. at 268 (citing Rice, 458 U.S. at 665 (Stevens, J., concurring)). 47 Id. at 268. 48 Id. at 269. 49 Id. 50 Rice, 458 U.S. at 657. HeinOnline -20 Yale J. on Reg. 28