美国纵向价格限制反垄断十年回顾:2007年-2016年  

A Ten-Year Review on Vertical Price Restrictions under U.S. Antitrust Law:2007-2016

作　　者：卢延纯 苏华[2] 

机构地区：[1]国家发展和改革委员会价格监测中心 [2]中国社会科学院美国研究所

出　　处：《竞争政策研究》2017年第1期13-23,共11页Competition Policy Research

摘　　要：本文梳理了2007年6月美国联邦最高法院Leegin案判决后美国纵向价格限制反垄断的发展,涵盖联邦与州层面立法、执法与诉讼,涉及案例包括:纽约州等诉赫曼米勒公司、加州诉Derma Quest公司、加州诉生物元素公司、纽约州诉泰普尔公司、马里兰州诉强生公司、玖熙公司以定期报告价格和销量为前提获准实施转售价格维持、麦克维恩案、Leegin案联邦与州层面的进展、好市多诉强生公司以及隐形眼镜系列诉讼案。本文分析显示,合理原则在美国联邦层面的适用并未给企业带来纵向价格限制足够的灵活度和可预测性,特别是美国各州与联邦反托拉斯制度差异不容忽视。本文指出,认为合理原则已成为国际惯例以及该原则优于中国和欧盟等司法辖区采用的"禁止+豁免"原则的观点,是基于对Leegin案最高法院判决及该判决后十年发展碎片化了解的结果,在很大程度上是一种虚幻的想象。This article explores the developments of vertical price restrictions under the U.S. antitrust law since the Supreme Court’s Leegin Decision in June 2007, concerning legislative activities, enforcement and litigation at the federal and state levels, covering New York v. Herman Miller, California v. DermaQuest, California v. Bioelements, New York v. Tempur-Pedic, Maryland v. Johnson ＆ Johnson Vision Care, FTC modified order regarding New West resale price maintenance, in the Matter of McWane, the development of the Leegin case at the federal and state levels, Costco v. Johnson ＆ Johnson Vision Care Inc., and series of lawsuits against contact lens manufacturers. The article reveals that the rule of reason adopted at the U.S. federal level has not provided suffcient fexibilities and certainties for enterprises engaging in resale price maintenance and the divergences between the U.S. federal and state antitrust law should not be ignored. The viewpoint that the rule of reason has become a global practice and is superior to the “prohibition and exemption” principle adopted by the EU and China is based on a fragmented understanding of the ten-year developments post Leegin and is illusory to a great extent.

关 键 词：美国联邦与州反托拉斯制度 纵向价格限制(转售价格维持) 合理原则 本身违法原则 “禁止+豁免”原则 

分 类 号：D971.2[政治法律—法学] DD912.29