Leegin's 10-Year Checkup: State RPM Rules Vs. Federal Rule

By Michael Lindsay and Matthew Ralph (June 26, 2017, 1:39 PM EDT) -- For nearly a century, resale price maintenance was a per se antitrust violation. Then, on June 28, 2007, the U.S. Supreme Court held that the legality of RPM should be determined on a case-by-case basis under the rule of reason. 

Now that a decade has passed since the landmark ruling in Leegin Creative Leather Products Inc. v. PSKS Inc., this weeklong Expert Analysis series examines its impact.

Michael Lindsay

Matthew Ralph Ten years ago the U.S. Supreme Court created a new federal rule for minimum resale price maintenance (RPM) agreements. Overruling an almost century-old precedent, Leegin held that federal antitrust law...

Stay ahead of the curve

In the legal profession, information is the key to success. You have to know what’s happening with clients, competitors, practice areas, and industries. Law360 provides the intelligence you need to remain an expert and beat the competition.

  • Access to case data within articles (numbers, filings, courts, nature of suit, and more.)
  • Access to attached documents such as briefs, petitions, complaints, decisions, motions, etc.
  • Create custom alerts for specific article and case topics and so much more!


Hello! I'm Law360's automated support bot.

How can I help you today?

For example, you can type:
  • I forgot my password
  • I took a free trial but didn't get a verification email
  • How do I sign up for a newsletter?
Ask a question!