Our website is currently undergoing updates, some links may no longer work and content may change. Please check back soon.

Facts of the Case

Provided by Oyez

In 1962, GTE Sylvania Incorporated (Sylvania) enacted a plan that limited the number of franchises in any given geographical area to which they would sell televisions. Three years later, Sylvania franchised a San Francisco area company, Young Brothers, which was located only one mile from one of their existing franchises, Continental T.V., Inc. (Continental). Continental protested that the Young Brothers franchise violated Sylvania’s new location restrictions. When Sylvania ignored their protests, Continental tried to acquire more Sylvania televisions to sell in a new retail location in Sacramento. Sylvania already had retailers near Continental’s new Sacramento location and declined to supply them with more televisions, so Continental withheld payments they owed Sylvania under an existing franchise agreement.

Continental sued in district court and alleged that Sylvania’s franchise agreements, which placed location-based restrictions on the sale of their products, violated the Sherman Anti-Trust Act (Sherman Act). A jury found that Sylvania’s location restrictions violated the per se rule established in United States v. Arnold, Schwinn, & Co. that prohibited manufacturers from “restrict[ing] and confin[ing] areas or persons with whom an article may be traded after the manufacturer has parted with dominion over it.” Sylvania appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, which declined to apply the per se rule. Instead, the appellate court distinguished this case from Schwinn, applied a reasonableness rule, and held that Sylvania’s restrictions “had less potential for competitive harm than” other invalidated restrictions.


Questions

  1. Is a per se rule barring a manufacturer from restricting the locations where retailers can sell the manufacturer’s products the appropriate rule to evaluate location restrictions?

Conclusions

  1. No. Justice Lewis F. Powell, Jr. delivered the opinion for the 6-2 majority. The Court held that the per se rule established in Schwinn applied to this case. However, the Court found that the Schwinn rule was outdated and overbroad; therefore, the Court overturned the rule in favor of a reasonableness standard. That standard considered whether the franchise agreement was an unreasonable restriction of competition and whether it had any redeeming virtue. The Court ruled that the appellate court properly applied this reasonableness rule and upheld Sylvania’s restrictions.

    Justice Byron R. White wrote an opinion concurring in the judgment but arguing that the Court should not have gone as far as to overturn the per se rule.

    Justice William J. Brennan, Jr. and Justice Thurgood Marshall dissented and argued that the Court should not have overturned the per se rule and should have rejected Sylvania’s restrictions.

    Justice William H. Rehnquist did not participate in the discussion or decision of this case.