ILNews

7th Circuit upholds antitrust suit dismissal

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The 7th Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed a decision by a U.S. District Court in Indiana which threw out a case involving Marathon Petroleum Company and its dealers because the dealers couldn't prove the company violated the Sherman Act.

The Circuit Court upheld the U.S. District Court, Southern Division of Indiana, Indianapolis Division's dismissal of John D. Sherman's complaint in John D. Sherman and S&D Holdings, Inc., on their own behalf and that of all others similarly situated v. Marathon Petroleum Company LLC and Speedway SuperAmerica LLC, No. 07-3543.

Sherman filed the suit against Marathon under Section 1 of the Sherman Act, charging the company with tying the processing of credit card sales to the Marathon franchise and also conspiring with banks to fix the price of processing these transactions.

Marathon dealers had to agree to process Marathon credit cards through a processing service designated by the company; the requirement only applies to Marathon's cards. Dealers are free to use other processing services for other credit cards, but would have to duplicate the system provided by Marathon. Marathon's processing system also can be used for other credit cards, so dealers aren't required to purchase other equipment.

Citing previous caselaw in their decision, the 7th Circuit found flaws in the plaintiffs' charge of illegal tying.

"The additional cost of using multiple card processing systems is not a penalty imposed by Marathon to force the use of its system, but an economy that flows directly from Marathon's offering its own credit card and credit card processing service," wrote Judge Richard Posner. "To call this tying would be like saying that a manufacturer of automobiles who sells tires with his cars is engaged in tying because, although the buyer is free to buy tires from someone else, he is unlikely to do so, having paid for the tires supplied by the car's manufacturer."

Sherman's kickback complaint makes no sense, wrote the judge, because if Marathon is forcing its dealers to pay a lot of money for processing credit card sales, this would only hurt firms that offer credit cards. Judge Posner reasoned that fee would be passed along to the customer in a higher gas price, which will reduce the demand for gas and the credit cards.

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Indiana State Bar Association

Indianapolis Bar Association

Evansville Bar Association

Allen County Bar Association

Indiana Lawyer on Facebook

facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. I need an experienced attorney to handle a breach of contract matter. Kindly respond for more details. Graham Young

  2. I thought the slurs were the least grave aspects of her misconduct, since they had nothing to do with her being on the bench. Why then do I suspect they were the focus? I find this a troubling trend. At least she was allowed to keep her law license.

  3. Section 6 of Article I of the Indiana Constitution is pretty clear and unequivocal: "Section 6. No money shall be drawn from the treasury for the benefit of any religious or theological institution."

  4. Video pen? Nice work, "JW"! Let this be a lesson and a caution to all disgruntled ex-spouses (or soon-to-be ex-spouses) . . . you may think that altercation is going to get you some satisfaction . . . it will not.

  5. First comment on this thread is a fitting final comment on this thread, as that the MCBA never answered Duncan's fine question, and now even Eric Holder agrees that the MCBA was in material error as to the facts: "I don't get it" from Duncan December 1, 2014 5:10 PM "The Grand Jury met for 25 days and heard 70 hours of testimony according to this article and they made a decision that no crime occurred. On what basis does the MCBA conclude that their decision was "unjust"? What special knowledge or evidence does the MCBA have that the Grand Jury hearing this matter was unaware of? The system that we as lawyers are sworn to uphold made a decision that there was insufficient proof that officer committed a crime. How can any of us say we know better what was right than the jury that actually heard all of the the evidence in this case."

ADVERTISEMENT