Consumer Law Library

Advisory opinion letter to Mr. Solomon

Topics: Robinson-Patman ActPromotional allowances

Opening text: s/ Harry P. Lamberson Development and sale of market data to marketers of food products ~ - would not violate order of June 1, 1961 (58 F.T.C 977), modified, 307 F.2d 184, Dkt. 6459

91 F.T.C. 1200 · June 1, 1961 ·

source volume section (91 F.T.C. 1200)

Text is machine-OCR of the printed volume and may contain errors. Advisory opinions are the Commission's views on proposed conduct, not binding orders.

/s/ Harry P. Lamberson

ADVISORY OPINIONS 1201 Development and sale of market data to marketers of food products ~ - would not violate order of June 1, 1961 (58 F.T.C 977), modified,

307 F.2d 184, Dkt. 6459.
Opinion Letter
May 1, 1978
Dear Mr. Solomon:

The Commission has considered your request for advice as to whether Giant Food Inc. (“Giant”) may engage in a proposed course of conduct whereby Giant would develop market data for business entities engaged in the marketing of food products without violating the order issued by the Commisson on June 1, 1961. By order of the Commission, 58 F.T.C. 977 (1961), modified, 307 F.2d 184 (D.C. Cir. 1962), Giant may not knowingly induce and receive discriminatory display or promotional allowances. Giant proposes to collect and disseminate market data collected through use of computer assisted checkout systems. Giant intends to contract with marketers of products, including its own suppliers, for preparation of this data. You state that the availability of this service would not be conditioned on the contracting party’s status as a Giant supplier, and that Giant will not induce any party to purchase the market data. On the basis of the facts submitted, you are advised that the Commission is of the opinion that the offer and sale of the market data would not violate the Commission’s order in Docket No. 6459. We would advise you that any attempt by Giant to condition its patronage with suppliers upon their purchase of the information service might well constitute as illegal and anticompetitive trade practice. The above advice in no way affects a given supplier’s or seller’s responsibility to adhere to the requirements of the Robinson-Patman Act, or to Giant’s responsibility to adhere to the provisions of the order

in its dealings with any of its suppliers.
By direction of the Commission.
Letter of Request
December 2, 1977