Abstract
The reversal of the longstanding per se rule against minimum resale price maintenance (RPM), in favor of a rule of reason standard, has generated considerable controversy. This article discusses some of the statements sometimes seen in the discussion of RPM's effects that do not have a solid economic foundation. The article also highlights the value of empirical evidence on the uses of RPM and other vertical restraints to help guide the courts in their efforts to develop truncated approaches to rule of reason analysis for assessing the practice.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.