ANHEUSER-BUSCH, INC. v. F. T. C. Case Brief
Complete case briefs with LSD+
Every LSD.Law brief pairs a full IRAC analysis with opinion summaries at three levels of depth, written by a team of Harvard Law and MIT graduates - a quick synopsis when you are pressed for time, the complete reasoning when you need to go deep.
Adaptive Case Views
Toggle between Flash, Standard, and Expanded. Get what you need, when you need it.
Exam-Ready IRAC Format
We deliver the precise structure professors look for in exam answers.
Complex Cases, Clarified
We break down dense legal reasoning into something digestible, helping you grasp core concepts.
Case Brief Summary & Legal Analysis
tl;dr: Anheuser-Busch reduced beer prices in St. Louis to match local rivals. The FTC claimed this was illegal price discrimination. The court disagreed, finding the price cuts were a legitimate competitive response, not predatory action that harmed competition as a whole.
Legal Significance: Establishes that territorial price discrimination is not per se illegal. To violate the Robinson-Patman Act, a primary-line price cut must be shown to have a predatory character and cause substantial injury to competition itself, not just temporary harm to individual competitors.
Case Facts & Court Holding
Key Facts & Case Background
Anheuser-Busch (AB), a national brewer, faced declining sales after a national price increase that its St. Louis competitors, including Falstaff, did not adopt. In response, AB implemented a promotional campaign exclusively in the St. Louis market. It first reduced the price of its premium Budweiser beer, though it remained priced higher than local rivals. When sales continued to fall, AB made a second price cut, matching the exact price of its St. Louis competitors. During this period, AB’s market share in St. Louis temporarily increased, but its competitors remained profitable and continued to compete vigorously. After AB ended the price reductions, its market share receded, while its main competitor, Falstaff, emerged with a significantly larger share of the market than it had before. The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) brought an action alleging that AB’s localized price cuts constituted primary-line price discrimination that injured competition in violation of § 2(a) of the Robinson-Patman Act. The hearing examiner found no evidence that AB subsidized its St. Louis prices with profits from other markets.
Court Holding & Legal Precedent
Issue: Did a national brewer’s temporary and localized price reductions, which only matched the prices of its regional competitors in a single market, have the requisite effect of substantially lessening competition in violation of § 2(a) of the Robinson-Patman Act?
No. The FTC’s order is set aside. The court held that the Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Exc
IRAC Legal Analysis
About IRAC analysis
IRAC (Issue, Rule, Analysis, Conclusion) is the structure professors expect in exam answers. Each LSD.Law brief states the issue, the governing rule with citations, the court's application of that rule, and the conclusion - the same reasoning pattern you will use on exams and in practice.
Legal Issue
Did a national brewer’s temporary and localized price reductions, which only matched the prices of its regional competitors in a single market, have the requisite effect of substantially lessening competition in violation of § 2(a) of the Robinson-Patman Act?
Conclusion
This case clarifies that in a primary-line Robinson-Patman Act claim, aggressive but Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ulla
Legal Rule
For a primary-line price discrimination claim to succeed under § 2(a) of Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cill
Legal Analysis
The court reasoned that the Robinson-Patman Act protects competition, not individual competitors. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. U
Flash-to-Full Case Opinions
Flash Summary
- The court held that Anheuser-Busch’s (AB) territorial price cuts did not