Hylton on the Apple e-books case: The central importance of the Court’s under-appreciated Business Electronics case

Keith Hylton —  15 February 2016

For a few months I have thought that the Apple eBooks case would find an easy fit within the Supreme Court’s antitrust decisions. The case that seems closest to me is Business Electronics v. Sharp Electronics, an unfortunately under-appreciated piece of antitrust precedent. One sign of its under-appreciation is its absence in some recent editions of antitrust casebooks.

In Business Electronics, the Court looked at a vertical relationship in which a manufacturer agreed with one of its retailers to terminate another retailer for failing to comply with the manufacturer’s suggested minimum prices. The Court held that such an agreement could not be ruled per se illegal unless the plaintiff could prove that the non-terminated retailer had agreed with the manufacturer to set its resale price at some level. The Court was reluctant to apply the per se test to this sort of case because of the potential efficiencies that might justify the manufacturer’s minimum retail prices. To allow some leeway for these efficiencies to be realized, the Court erected a high burden of proof under the per se test. Now, of course, the Court no longer applies the per se test to vertical arrangements like that in Business Electronics because of its decision in Leegin to adopt rule of reason analysis for vertical restraints.

The Apple eBooks case falls under Business Electronics. Apple offered the book publishers a contract that left Amazon with a choice of complying with a pricing system closer to the publisher’s preferences or terminating its relationship with the publishers. In other words, the Apple contract, with its famous most-favored-nations clause, effectively presented Amazon with an ultimatum similar to the one observed in Business Electronics. The ultimatum worked: Amazon was forced to comply with the pricing scheme preferred by the publishers and Apple. It follows from Business Electronics, and from Leegin, that the burden of proof in this case should be set high – a bit higher than the trial court set it in this case. Further, Leegin suggests that rule of reason analysis should apply because the relationship at issue is vertical.

Justice Scalia’s passing may have affected the Apple eBooks case already. Scalia was the author of Business Electronics, and presumably the Supreme Court Justice most likely to have noticed the similarity between Business Electronics and Apple eBooks.

Trackbacks and Pingbacks:

  1. Hazlett on the Apple e-books case: The Apple case is a throwback to Dr. Miles, and that’s not a good thing « Truth on the Market - February 16, 2016

    […] in either instance evaporates. Dr. Miles has been revised as per GTE Sylvania, Leegin, and (thanks, Keith Hylton) Business Electronics v. Sharp Electronics. Let’s here look at the pending Apple […]

  2. Day two of TOTM’s blog symposium on the Apple e-books antitrust case « Truth on the Market - February 16, 2016

    […] Keith Hylton […]

  3. The USA vs. Apple e-book antitrust case: Eight legal thinkers have their say - TeleRead News: E-books, publishing, tech and beyond - February 16, 2016

    […] Keith Hylton also invokes the late Justice Scalia, in suggesting the Supreme Court should look at a lesser-known case, Business Electronics v. Sharp Electronics, and apply its precedent in dealing with the Apple affair. It involved the Court declining to apply the per se test to manufacturer-retail contracts in cases where a manufacturer terminated its agreement with a retailer for failing to honor suggested minimum pricing unless it could be proved the manufacturer had agreed with another retailer to set resale prices. Scalia wrote the opinion in that case, and Hylton feels that he would have been most likely to notice the similarity. […]

  4. Blog Symposium on the Apple E-Books Antitrust Case: Implications for Antitrust Law and for the Economy « Truth on the Market - February 15, 2016

    […] Keith Hylton […]