Gary Gerlinger v. Amazon.com, Inc.

Gary Gerlinger v. Amazon.com, Inc.,

311 F.Supp.2d 838, U.S. Dist. Ct., N.D. Cal.,

2004: Court found Plaintiff’s raised a triable issue as to whether Amazon’s agreement with Borders had an anti-competitive effect on commerce. 

311 F.Supp.2d 838

Gary GERLINGER, individually, on behalf of all others similarly situated, and on behalf of the California general public, Plaintiff,

v.

AMAZON.COM, INC.; Borders Group, Inc.; Borders, Inc.; Borders Online, LLC; and Borders Online, Inc., Defendants.

No. C 02-05238 MHP.

United States District Court, N.D. California.

March 23, 2004.

 

Issue:

  • Was the agreement between Amazon and Borders illegal?

 

Procedural background:

  • Plaintiff sued Amazon.com, Inc. for violating antitrust laws, unfair competition laws and unjust enrichment by its agreement with Borders.com.
  • Amazon moved for summary judgment.

 

Plaintiff’s argument:

  • Agreement between Amazon and Borders eliminates competition between two former rivals in the market for online sales of books and consumers are therefore denied a competitive choice for their online book purchases.
  • Two provisions of the Agreement are per se violations of antitrust laws: one regarding prices and the other provision which limits Borders from engaging in other online retailing pursuits during the time of the Agreement.

 

Amazon’s argument:

  • They actually offer lower prices from third parties on their site and did not engage in price-fixing with Borders as they own Borders.
  • The exclusivity provision of the Agreement is very narrowly tailored to cover only the area in which they collaborated.

 

Conclusion:

  • Court unsure if Plaintiffs have standing; made no showing that alleged price-fixing would in fact be detrimental. Appears the Agreement would lead to lower prices available to consumers on the Borders.com website. Injury that flows from aspects of a defendant’s conduct that are beneficial or neutral to competition is not “antitrust injury.” Ordered parties to brief this issue.
  • The court found Amazon has not engaged in price-fixing, but it does not have sufficient evidence to make a determination on the issue of whether the Agreement has an anti-competitive effect.
On April 8, 2016   /   Law Library