546US1
Unit: $U15
[08-22-08 15:43:12] PAGES PGT: OPIN
Cite as: 546 U. S. 164 (2006)
175
Opinion of the Court
not demonstrate a reasonable possibility of competitive in jury.” Ibid. We granted certiorari, 544 U. S. 903 (2005), to resolve this question: May a manufacturer be held liable for secondary line price discrimination under the Robinson-Patman Act in the absence of a showing that the manufacturer discrimi nated between dealers competing to resell its product to the same retail customer? Satisfied that the Court of Appeals erred in answering that question in the affirmative, we re verse the Eighth Circuit’s judgment. II Section 2, “when originally enacted as part of the Clayton Act in 1914, was born of a desire by Congress to curb the use by financially powerful corporations of localized price-cutting tactics which had gravely impaired the competitive position of other sellers.” FTC v. Anheuser-Busch, Inc., 363 U. S. 536, 543, and n. 6 (1960) (citing H. R. Rep. No. 627, 63d Cong., 2d Sess., 8 (1914); S. Rep. No. 698, 63d Cong., 2d Sess., 2–4 (1914)). Augmenting that provision in 1936 with the Robinson-Patman Act, Congress sought to target the per ceived harm to competition occasioned by powerful buyers, rather than sellers; specifically, Congress responded to the advent of large chainstores, enterprises with the clout to ob tain lower prices for goods than smaller buyers could de mand. See 14 H. Hovenkamp, Antitrust Law ¶ 2302, p. 11 (2d ed. 2006) (hereinafter Hovenkamp); P. Areeda & L. Kaplow, Antitrust Analysis ¶ 602, pp. 908–909 (5th ed. 1997) (hereinafter Areeda). The Act provides, in relevant part: “It shall be unlawful for any person engaged in com merce . . . to discriminate in price between different pur chasers of commodities of like grade and quality, . . . where the effect of such discrimination may be substan tially to lessen competition or tend to create a monopoly in any line of commerce, or to injure, destroy, or prevent competition with any person who either grants or know
