Framing Franchise Antitrust Litigation: The Legacy of Kodak and Queen City Pizza
Academic Article
Overview
Research
Identity
View All
Overview
abstract
A decade ago, many antitrust commentators were predicting a revival of franchise antitrust claims flowing in the wake of Eastman Kodak Co. v. Image Technical Services, Inc. The thinking was that Kodaks recognition of a claim for monopolization of an aftermarket for parts and services separate from each other and from a primary product might be extended to cover franchise relationships in which the franchisee is required to purchase fungible products from its franchisor, even though those products could be purchased elsewhere on more favorable terms. Fairly quickly, though, the Third Circuit decided Queen City Pizza, Inc. v. Dominos Pizza, Inc., which held that a Kodak-type antitrust claim will not lie for allegations that a franchisor forced unwanted but contractually agreed-to purchases of products on franchisees in the course of the franchise relationship. That case continues to bedevil franchisees suing under antitrust theories. This Article looks back at the Queen City Pizza legacy and where, as a consequence, franchise antitrust litigation stands today.
