Marketing Channel Differentiation Strategies and the Robinson-Patman Act
Antitrust Report, 2026
Price discrimination claims under the Robinson-Patman Act (RPA) have seen a resurgence in recent years, particularly in cases alleging that suppliers charged different prices for the same goods to competing downstream resellers, known as secondary-line claims. In parallel, firms are increasingly varying the promotion and pricing of their products across brick-and-mortar, e-commerce, and wholesale channels to accommodate the preferences and purchasing behavior of end customers. In some cases, resellers operating in different channels may not actually compete for the same customers, raising questions about when price discrimination results in injury to competition under the RPA.
Affiliate Anthony Dukes, Principal Laura O’Laughlin, Vice President Kristof Zetenyi, and Manager Brandon Norton explore the connection between marketing channel differentiation and liability under the RPA in an article published in Antitrust Report. The authors review recent secondary-line RPA cases and discuss the use of the “marketing channel differentiation” defense in such matters against the backdrop of established marketing theory. In addition to citing research on the prevalence and success of this defense, the authors consider how to assist factfinders’ determination of whether downstream retailers compete for the same end customers.
Read an excerpt from the article