The issue presented was whether Section 1 of the Sherman Act preempts state laws facilitating unsupervised private price-fixing, such as Connecticut’s—which requires private beer, wine and liquor wholesalers to “post” their prices in advance so that all competing wholesalers can match them, to “hold” those prices for a month and to refrain from offering quantity discounts to retailers. It is important to note that the wholesalers in this scheme determine not only the case prices paid by retailers, but also the minimum bottle prices paid by consumers. Section 1 of the Sherman Act prohibits contracts, combinations and conspiracies in restraint […]

Missouri has a general tied-house statute and has two regulations that prohibit certain types of advertisements: (1) prohibits retailers from advertising discounted prices for intoxicating liquor outside of their establishments; (2) prohibits retailers from advertising prices below the retailers’ actual cost. Advertising discounted prices or below-cost pricing is allowed inside of the retail establishment. Missouri argued that the tied-house statute does not implicate the First Amendment and, even if it implicates the First Amendment, it passes the Central Hudson test for commercial speech, and that the advertising regulations are constitutional under Central Hudson. The 8th Cir. found that “although the […]