Meeting competition defense

An affirmative defense to a Robinson-Patman Act claim of illegal differential pricing is the so-called “meeting competition” defense. This defense has at least two levels: a defendant may assert (and must prove) that the lower price charged to a favored buyer was selected in order to permit the seller to meet the price offered by a competing seller ("primary line competition"); or he may assert (and must prove) that the challenged price was necessary in order to enable the buyer to meet the competition of one of the buyer's competitors ("secondary line competition").

A seller may not, however, knowingly “beat” the prices of a competitor.11 A Robinson-Patman defendant may also successfully defend his challenged pricing activity if he can show that his price differentials were “cost justified”—i.e., that the price differential made only due allowance for the costs incurred in producing or delivering the goods.12