By  on August 1, 2007

WASHINGTON — Democrats in Congress considered moves Tuesday that would counteract Supreme Court decisions involving minimum pricing agreements and pay discrimination that have broad implications for the fashion industry.

A Senate panel listened to testimony at a hearing on the fairness of the High Court's decision overturning an almost-century-old law setting minimum pricing agreements between retailers and manufacturers.

In the House, lawmakers passed a measure that would override a decision that placed time limits on employees filing pay discrimination lawsuits.

The Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on Antitrust, Competition Policy and Consumer Rights reviewed the ruling on Leegin Creative Leather Products Inc. v. PSKS Inc. The decision gives lower courts the flexibility to determine, on a case-by-case basis, whether minimum pricing agreements are anticompetitive based on several factors. It supplanted a law that held minimum pricing agreements between retailers and manufacturers were illegal.

While the fallout in the industry is still being assessed, many opponents of the court's ruling argue that off-price retailers and discounters could be adversely affected and consumers will be forced to pay higher prices.

In the majority opinion, the Supreme Court justices, while acknowledging that minimum pricing agreements could be abused by powerful manufacturers or retailers, argued that they could also spur competition.

Subcommittee chairman Herb Kohl (D., Wis.), whose family founded Kohl's department store in 1962, said: "I am particularly worried about the effect of this new rule permitting minimum vertical price-fixing on the next generation of discount retailers, the next Sam Walton. If new discount retailers can be prevented from selling products at a discount at the behest of an established retailer worried about competition, we may imperil an essential element of retail competition so beneficial to consumers."

Marcy Syms, chief executive officer of Syms Corp., an off-price retailer with 33 stores in 13 states, testified at the Senate panel hearing about the "undesirable effects" retail price maintenance [RPM] agreements will have on her business and on off-price and discounting business as a whole.

"The prohibition on RPM agreements has, I believe, kept in check serious threats to Syms' ability to sell merchandise," she said. "That may well change as manufacturer-oriented RPM policies become more prevalent in the clothing industry."

To Read the Full Article

Tap into our Global Network

Of Industry Leaders and Designers

load comments
blog comments powered by Disqus