Festool importer/distributor fined in Australia

[Ken Milhinch]

The following is self explanatory, and taken from the govt body website. Is there a similar law in the USA ?

http://www.accc.gov.au/content/index.phtml/itemId/783265

[Bob Childress]

Best wait for the legal beagles to answer, but I think that it may have something to do with advertising. I have noticed that often Sony electronics prices, when discounted, are not advertised. They often include phrases like "call for price" or something similar.

[JayStPeter]

There are definitely ways to legally "price fix" products in the USA. Just try to shop for a deal on Oakley sunglasses as one example. It has been explained to me how this is legal, but I still don't entirely understand it. IMO, the "call for price" stuff is really just a sales pitch to make you feel like you're getting the best price possible.

[David Weaver]

Price maintenance is legal in the united states if you can prove that there is a reason that would benefit the consumer. I don't know if it's that simple, but long ago, Schwinn was in some trouble for setting price floors for retailers, but they won their case because they contended that they sold bikes through full-service retailers, and the price reflected a built in cushion for an expected level of service. They didn't want their brand cheapened by having it sold at box stores or retail stores where the people getting the bicycles wouldn't get any service. I think they had a legitimate claim then, but have no idea if case law has overturned that. Apparently, the distributors of festool abide by something similar.

The minimum advertised price mentioned above is something different, where a dealer is allowed to sell at a lower price, but they're not allowed to advertise it - thus the call for price thing. Not that having to call guarantees getting something for less than the minimum advertisable price. In a MAP scenario, the contract between the distributor and the retailer is where the bind is. Gibson guitar is especially thuggy with this one.

[John Sonnenberg]

Best wait for the legal beagles to answer, but I think that it may have something to do with advertising.

I'm no legal beagle or eagle, but I did read the paper today. Looks like the 1911 ruling (Miles vs Parks) will be infront of the supreme court on Monday dealing with this exact minimum pricing issue. Here is the current case that will be up tomorrow.

http://www.gmdc.com/News/alerts/legal_advisory/Legal_Advisory_re_Leegin_Case_12_06.pdf