https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o5z8-9Op2nM

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5857060&forum_id=2#49817863)

How does it work with manufacturers that make very slightly different products for different purchasers? Like, we sell model 123XYZ for $10 each to most retailers, but we sell the 123XYZ-A to Amazon for $8 each with some superficial distinguishing characteristic.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5857060&forum_id=2#49817881)

Yeah, it's completely rampant. But the statute and caselaw are very confusing, and the damages aren't as easy to calculate as Section 1 cases, so the big antitrust firms don't bother.

In your second paragraph you're really thinking like an RPA evader. That's what many of them try to do (and why Costco and Sam's Club have all these weird sizes that you don't see at grocery stores). But it's not really a defense, since the question is just whether the two products are of "like grade and quality." So they really have to be entirely different products, or it's a jury question (which makes it a cinch for people like me).

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5857060&forum_id=2#49817909)

Also, I love you.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5857060&forum_id=2#49818213)

Nobody asks me how I feel about my own life. I think they can just kind of tell.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5857060&forum_id=2#49818593)

What leads you to that conclusion?

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5857060&forum_id=2#49820933)

what about amazon's return fraud? let's say Widget 123 is sold at Walmart for $2.99 but on Amazon as Widget 123A for $7.99. however, multiple customers buy the $2.99 Widget 123 from walmart and then buy Widget 123A on Amazon, but return walmart's $2.99 Widget 123 to amazon. Now they effectively got Widget 123A for $2.99 but it's completely indistinguishable from Widget 123.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5857060&forum_id=2#49821352)

I'm just curious how globohomo machinations affect liability under the relevant laws

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5857060&forum_id=2#49821364)

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5857060&forum_id=2#49820935)

I've been thinking about incorporating Trump's "how long is this thing?" hand gesture, but it's a little risky since it's so associated with him.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5857060&forum_id=2#49820341)

Read this: https://www.americanbar.org/groups/antitrust_law/resources/magazine/2024-spring/critics-are-wrong/

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5857060&forum_id=2#49821317)

The funny thing about that phrase is that almost no one thinks critically about what it actually means. We've been trained to reason, "Walmart gets a 25% lower price? Must be b/c of economies of scale."

I'll give you one guess as to who trained us to think that way.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5857060&forum_id=2#49821358)

So your argument is that critics of this regime, who say rpa causes higher prices, are wrong because if you allowed "lower margin for higher volume" arrangements youre incentivizing market concentration?

That seems right and in line with the law. Therefore posner is wrong.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5857060&forum_id=2#49821380)

But wait a sec, this is useful -- they'll often say, "we don't keep track of individualized COGS." But asking them about their relative profit margin would seem to be essentially the same thing.

In practical terms though, "cost-justification" is a defense for them, rather than an element of our cause of action. And in reality, none of our defensemos has actually tried to prove the defense, because none of this shit is cost-justified in the first place; they just give Costco and Walmart a deep discount because they demand it.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5857060&forum_id=2#49821432)

p.s. handsome guy. and respect for going in to an environment that i expect was hostile to him and his plaintiff rent seeking (george mason)

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5857060&forum_id=2#49820875)

In fact there's a legal question that remains open by SCOTUS precedents, which is whether volume discounts need to be justified by some cost efficiencies realized by the supplier. When people think about "volume discounts," that's normally the rationale they have in their head, but of course at extreme volumes, the cost to the supplier is actually higher than smaller volumes.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5857060&forum_id=2#49820941)

how do you figure? the per unit basis obviously gets lower as volumes increase (as you achieve efficiencies of scale and don't need to do a truckload for a partial shipment, or have sales people expending cost trying to move small amounts of product). in absolute sum terms, agreed, but who cares

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5857060&forum_id=2#49821165)

Of course that's idiosyncratic, but when you're talking about CPG's the largest unit of shipping is a "truckload," and there are zero measurable cost efficiencies in selling 50 truckloads vs. 1 truckload.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5857060&forum_id=2#49821326)

Which makes it hilarious that one of these L&E dweebs' main arguments is that prohibiting price discrimination "hurts consumers."

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5857060&forum_id=2#49821962)

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5857060&forum_id=2#49822075)

https://thisthatbeauty.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/Vanessa-Williams-Clear-Eyes.jpg

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5857060&forum_id=2#49822084)

I should clarify when I say "Costco" here I'm not talking about regular Costcos for consumers. This is a division called Costco Business Center that caters to convenience stores, like our guys did in that case.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5857060&forum_id=2#49822136)

As a generalist from a transactional background, I couldn't litigate myself out of a paper bag. But I do strongly support any effort to do any or all of the following:

1. Eliminate personhood for legal entities

2. Eliminate the legal impetus for legal entities to chase ever-expanding profits/financial positions for their shareholders (this impossibility on lengthy time horizons enables many facially destructive problems facing society)

3. Break the predatory control that large legal entities use to destroy competition before devouring the consumer

It sounds like you're finding an angle to pursue #3. If I understand that right, you're doing something meaningful and important

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5857060&forum_id=2#49821308)

This is how Rep. Patman (D-Tex) described it:

"This bill has the opposition of all cheaters, chiselers, bribe takers, bribe givers, and the greedy who seek monopolistic powers which would destroy opportunity for all young people and which would eventually cause Government ownership, as the people of this country will not tolerate private monopoly.

This bill has the support of those who believe that competition is the life of trade; that the policy of live and let live is a good one; that it is one of the first duties of Government to protect the weak against the strong and prevent men from injuring one another; that greed should be restrained and the Golden Rule practiced."

We always include that quote when defensemos move for SJ, and I think it works pretty well.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5857060&forum_id=2#49821330)

Fuck government falling down on its duties. Cool that you can step into the breach here...just don't be a cunt allowing for settlements involving major legal fees without much else

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5857060&forum_id=2#49821350)

I'll revise, then. Be as cunty as possible in a way that involves relitigating the same winning case over and over for as many plaintiffs as possible, until you either force these entities to change or somehow manage to suicidally shoot yourself 10 times in the back of your head

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5857060&forum_id=2#49821434)

(Since this is a panel, I’ll group them by role/position rather than exact names.)

🥇 1. Best Overall: Anti-revival (practical economist-type)

Position: Don’t revive the Robinson-Patman Act

Why they ranked #1:

Built a clean cause-and-effect argument

Focused on real-world mechanics (bulk discounts, logistics, pricing)

Stayed grounded in what regulators can actually enforce

👉 They win because they answered the hardest question:

“What happens if we actually do this?”

🥈 2. Strong but Incomplete: Pro-revival (fairness advocate)

Position: Bring the law back

Strengths:

Clear moral framing: big vs small = unfair

Highlighted power imbalances and market concentration

Easy for a general audience to emotionally connect with

Weakness:

Didn’t fully explain implementation

Vulnerable to: “This sounds good, but does it work?”

👉 Very persuasive emotionally, slightly weaker analytically.

🥉 3. Middle-ground / moderator-type voices

Position: Unsure / nuanced / conditional

Strengths:

Acknowledged complexity

Tried to balance both sides

Weakness:

Less memorable

Didn’t push a strong, decisive argument

👉 In debates, nuance without a clear stance usually loses impact.

🧠 What This Tells You About Winning Debates

The “winner” wasn’t the most passionate—it was the one who:

Explained mechanisms

Addressed tradeoffs

Stayed practically grounded

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5857060&forum_id=2#49821425)