Federal Trade Commission v. Curtis Pub Co

Citation260 U.S. 568,67 L.Ed. 408,43 S.Ct. 210
Decision Date08 January 1923
Docket NumberNo. 86,86
PartiesFEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION v. CURTIS PUB. CO
CourtUnited States Supreme Court

Mr. Solicitor General Beck and Adrian F. Busick, both of Washington, D. C., for petitioner.

[Argument of Counsel from pages 569-572 intentionally omitted] Mr. John G. Milburn, of New York City, for respondent.

Mr. Justice McREYNOLDS delivered the opinion of the Court.

The court below entered a decree setting aside an order of the Trade Commission, dated July 21, 1919, which directed respondent Publishing Company to cease and desist from entering into or enforcing agreements prohibiting wholesalers from selling or distributing the magazines or newspapers of other publishers. (C. C. A.) 270 Fed. 881. And the cause is here by certiorari.

The commission issued an original complaint July 5, 1917, based mainly on a restrictive clause in existing contracts with so-called district agents. Thereafter respondent changed its agreement. An amended complaint followed, which amplified the original allegations and attacked the second contract and consequent conditions.

The first section of the amended complaint declares there is reason to believe that respondent has been and is using unfair methods of competition contrary to section 5, Act of Congress approved September 26, 1914, c. 311, 38 Stat. 717 (Comp. St. §§ 8836a-8836k),1 and specifically charges: That respondent, a Pennsylvania corporation with principal place of business at Philadelphia, has long engaged in publishing, selling and circulating weekly and monthly periodicals in interstate commerce. That with intent, purpose and effect of suppressing competition in the publication, sale and circulation of periodicals it now refuses and for some months past has refused to sell its publications to any dealer who will not agree to refrain from selling or distributing those of certain competitors to other dealers or distributors. That with the same intent, purpose and effect it is making and for several months last past has made contracts with numerous wholesalers to distribute its periodicals as agents, and not to distribute those of other publishers without permission. That wholesalers so restricted are the principal and often the only medium for proper distribution of weekly and monthly periodicals in various localities throughout the United States, and many of the so-called agents formerly operated under contracts with respondent which abridged their liberty of resale.

The second section declares there is reason to believe respondent is violating section 3, Act of Congress approved Octo er 15, 1914 (Clayton Act) c. 323, 38 Stat. 730,2 and specifically charges: That respondent publishes, sells and circulates weekly and monthly periodicals in interstate commerce. That for some months past, in such commerce, it has sold and is now selling and making contracts for the sale of its publications and periodicals for use and resale and is fixing the price charged on condition, agreement or understanding that the purchaser shall not sell other publications or periodicals, thereby substantially lessening competition and tending to create a monopoly.

Respondent replied to the notice to show cause why it should not be required to desist 'from the violations of law charged in this complaint.' It denied unlawful conduct and claimed that the parties contracted with as agents were such in fact; that their services were necessary for the maintenance of the plan originated by it of distributing publications through school boys, who require special superintendence; and further, that such agents had lawfully agreed to abstain from other connections and devote their time and attention to superintending the boys and to the general upbuilding of sales. Copies of respondent's first and second agreements with distributors accompanied the answer. The first had then been superseded and largely discontinued.

The second contract provides that upon requisition respondent will consign its publications to the agent as he may require, retaining title until they are sold; that the agent will supply the demand of boys and dealers at specified prices, and will use reasonable efforts and devote all nec- essary time to promoting the sales of such publications; 'that without the written consent of the publisher he will not display, deliver, or sell any copies of any one of said publications before the authorized publication date, as specified in the printed requisition blanks, or dispose of any copies of said publications in the territory of any other district agent or special agent of the publisher, or act as agent for or supply at wholesale rates any periodicals other than those published by the publisher, or directly or indirectly furnigh to any other publisher or agent the names and addresses of the persons to whom the publisher's publications are sold or delivered;' that subject to the principal's direction and control the agent shall train, instruct and supervise an adequate force of boys for distributing the publications; and that he will return unsold copies, their cover pages or headings.

After taking much testimony—2,500 pages—the commission made a brief and rather vague report of 2 pages, containing findings and conclusions based on the second contract with dealers and without direct reference to the earlier one. The substance of the report follows:

Paragraph 1. Respondent, a Pennsylvania corporation with principal place of business at Philadelphia, is engaged in publishing, selling and distributing weekly and monthly periodicals among the states.

Paragraph 2. 'That in the course of such commerce, the respondent has entered into contracts with certain persons, partnerships, or corporations to sell or distribute its magazines by the terms of which contracts, such persons, partnerships, or corporations, have agreed, among other things, not to 'act as agent for or supply at wholesale rates, any periodicals other than those published by the publisher'3

—the respondent herein—without the written consent of such publisher, that of such persons partnerships, or corporations, approximately, four hundered forty-seven (447), hereinafter referred to as 'dealers,' are and previous to entering into such contracts with respondent were regularly engaged in the business of wholesale dealers in newspapers or magazines, or both and as such are as aforesaid engaged in the sale or distribution of magazines, or newspapers, or both, of other publishers; that many of said four hundred forty-seven (447) dealers, and many others who have become such wholesale dealers since entering into such contracts, bound by said contract provisions as aforesaid, have requested respondent's permission to engage also in the sale or distribution of certain publications competing in the course of said commerce, with those of respondent, which permission as to said competing publications has been uniformly denied by respondent; that in enforcing said contract provision as to said dealers, and in denying them said permission, respondent has prevented and now prevents certain of its competitors from utilizing established channels for the general distribution or sale of magazines or newspapers, or both, of different and sundry publishers; that such established channels are in most instances the principal and most efficient, and in numerous cases, the only medium for the distribution of such publications in the various localities of the United States; that such method of competition so employed by respondent in the course of such commerce, as aforesaid, has proved and is unfair.'

Paragraph 3. 'That in the course of such commerce, the respondent has made sales of its magazines to, or entered into contracts for the sale of the same with certain persons, partnerships, or corporations, by the terms of which sales or contracts for such sales, such persons, partnerships, or corporations have agreed, among other things:' [here follow, without material change, the words of paragraph 2 printed supra in italics.] That the effect of said contract provision has been, and is, to sub stantially lessen competition with respondent's magazines and tends to create for the respondent a monopoly in the business of publishing magazines of the character of those published by respondent.'

The commission concluded that the method of competition described in paragraph two of the report violates section 5, Act of September 26, 1914, and that the acts and conduct specified in the third paragraph violate section 3, Act of October 15, 1914. And it thereupon ordered; That the respondent cease and desist, while engaged in interstate commerce, from entering into any contracts, agreements or understandings which forbid persons, partnerships or corporations already engaged in the sale or distribution of magazines or news papers, or both, of other publishers from acting as agents for, selling or supplying to others at wholesale rates periodicals other than respondent's without its consent; from contracting with those already engaged in the sale or distribution of magazines or newspapers, or both, of...

To continue reading

Request your trial
81 cases
  • Tampa Electric Company v. Nashville Coal Company
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (6th Circuit)
    • 4 Abril 1960
    ...v. Bausch & Lomb Optical Co., 1944, 321 U.S. 707, 728-729, 64 S.Ct. 805, 88 L.Ed. 1024. Cf. Federal Trade Commission v. Curtis Publishing Co., 1923, 260 U.S. 568, 43 S.Ct. 210, 67 L.Ed. 408; Beloit Culligan Soft Water Co. v. Culligan, Inc., 7 Cir., 1959, 274 F.2d 29. This fact was tacitly a......
  • United States v. Bausch Lomb Optical Co Lens Co v. United States
    • United States
    • United States Supreme Court
    • 10 Abril 1944
    ...v. Sinclair Refining Co., 261 U.S. 463, 475, 476, 43 S.Ct. 450, 453, 454, 67 L.Ed. 746; and Federal Trade Commission v. Curtis Publishing Co., 260 U.S. 568, 582, 43 S.Ct. 210, 213, 67 L.Ed. 408. None of these cases involve, as the present case does, an agreement between the seller and purch......
  • United States v. Columbia Steel Co, 461
    • United States
    • United States Supreme Court
    • 7 Junio 1948
    ...United States v. Bausch & Lomb Co., 321 U.S. 707, 728, 729, 64 S.Ct. 805, 816, 88 L.Ed. 1024. Compare Federal Trade Comm. v. Curtis Publishing Co., 260 U.S. 568, 43 S.Ct. 210, 67 L.Ed. 408. 24 334 U.S. 100, 68 S.Ct. 941, at page 945: 'Anyone who owns and operates the single theatre in a tow......
  • United States v. Aluminum Co. of America, Eq. No. 85-73.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 2nd Circuit. United States District Courts. 2nd Circuit. Southern District of New York
    • 30 Septiembre 1941
    ...skill, and capital should have large freedom of action in the conduct of their own affairs." So in Federal Trade Commission v. Curtis Co., 260 U.S. 568, 582, 43 S.Ct. 210, 213, 67 L.Ed. 408, it was "Effective competition requires that traders have large freedom of action when conducting the......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
7 books & journal articles
  • Vertical Restraints
    • United States
    • ABA Antitrust Library Handbook on Antitrust in Technology Industries
    • 5 Diciembre 2017
    ...a competitor of the lessor, the practical effect of these drastic provisions is to prevent such use.”). 88. See FTC v. Curtis Publ’g Co., 260 U.S. 568, 581 (1923); Barr Labs. v. Abbott Labs., 978 F.2d 98, 110 (3d Cir. 1992). 89. See Barr Labs. , 978 F.2d at 110; Roland Mach. Co. v. Dresser ......
  • Table of Cases
    • United States
    • ABA Antitrust Library Handbook on Antitrust in Technology Industries
    • 5 Diciembre 2017
    ...Cir. 2004), 148 Currency Conversion Fee Antitrust Litig., In re , 773 F. Supp. 2d 351 (S.D.N.Y. 2011), 68-69 Curtis Publ’g Co.; FTC v., 260 U.S. 568 (1923), 158 Cyber Promotions v. America Online, Inc., 948 F. Supp. 456 (E.D. Pa 1996), 297 D Daimler Chrysler/Deutsche Telecom/JV, Case COMP/2......
  • Table of Cases
    • United States
    • ABA Antitrust Library Consumer Protection Law Developments (Second) - Volume II
    • 2 Febrero 2016
    ...468, 469 FTC v. Consumer Health Benefits Ass’n, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 72161 (E.D.N.Y. 2012), 286, 289, 291, 558 FTC v. Curtis Publ’g Co., 260 U.S. 568 (1923), 103 FTC v. Cyberspace.com, 453 F.3d 1196 (9th Cir. 2006), 25 FTC v. Direct Marketing Concepts, Inc., 2004 WL 1399185 (D. Mass. 2004)......
  • Exclusive dealing
    • United States
    • ABA Antitrust Library Antitrust Law and Economics of Product Distribution
    • 1 Enero 2016
    ...or consignments of goods. See, e.g. , Int’l Boxing Club v. United States, 358 U.S. 242, 252 (1959); FTC v. Curtis Publ’g Co., 260 U.S. 568, 581 (1923); Sheridan v. Marathon Petroleum Co., 530 F.3d 590, 592 (7th Cir. 2008) (noting that the tying arrangement at issue was “challenged under sec......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT