Under the rule of reason, a claim for an impermissible restraint of competition must be based on proof that the defendant’s conduct in the marketplace or the actual effect of the alleged contractual restraints resulted in a restraint of competition.
The court first found that the distributors had failed to provide
any evidence of an actual destructive vp quality email lists effect on competition. Since an actual destructive effect was not proven, the court held that the distributors must prove that “Princess House dominated the market by dividing the relevant portion of the market between Princess House and Park Lane, and their collusion had an effect on the market.”
The court then held that the distributors
had failed to establish a substantial market share, and thus found that the agreement between Princess House and Park Lane did not that lack of knowledge is probably violate Sections 1 or 2 of the Sherman Act.
If you feel like we’ve come full circle, you’d be right. Although the Sherman Act analysis is self-explanatory, it results in the same analysis as the Clayton Act. In other words, the Princess House lawsuit required the distributors to establish a substantial market share in geographic and product terms and to show that Princess House phone number thailand had achieved a dominant position in that substantial market share.
As demonstrated by the Clayton
Act analysis, this task is very complex due to the specific nature of MLM sales. Therefore, despite the fact that the agreement concluded by the defendant contains signs of violating the letter of the law, the Sherman Act analysis leads to the same results as the Clayton Act analysis. That is, no MLM company, by adopting restrictive provisions, will achieve significant dominance in a significant portion of the market, thereby violating the Sherman Act.
