- Date:
- August 17, 1937
- Location:
- United States
Miller-Tydings Act of 1937
-
What was the Miller-Tydings Act of 1937?
The Miller-Tydings Act of 1937, a U.S. federal law, exempted retail price-maintenance agreements in interstate commerce from federal antitrust laws. These agreements, also known as fair-trade laws, allowed manufacturers to set minimum prices for their goods when sold by retailers within a state. The Act was designed to protect small businesses like drugstores and grocers from the price advantages of larger chain stores. It was passed to counteract the Supreme Court's ruling in the Dr. Miles case, which had previously found vertical resale price agreements to be in violation of the Sherman Act. Congress passed the Miller-Tydings bill on August 17, 1937.
1 Britannica SourceCreated from Britannica articles using AI. AI can make mistakes, so verify using Britannica articles. -
Why was the Miller-Tydings Act created?
The Miller-Tydings Act of 1937 aimed to exempt retail price-maintenance agreements from federal antitrust laws, specifically amending Section 1 of the Sherman Antitrust Act.
During the 1930s, smaller stores faced competition from large chain stores that benefited from economies of scale, often selling at lower prices. To level the playing field, many states enacted fair-trade laws that heavily taxed chain stores. Manufacturers and independent retailers supported the passage of the Miller-Tydings Act because they believed that lower prices would negatively affect the consumer perception of quality, diminish the value of branded goods, and ultimately reduce sales.
3 Britannica SourcesCreated from Britannica articles using AI. AI can make mistakes, so verify using Britannica articles. -
What are 'fair trade laws,' and how did the act relate to them?
Fair trade laws, also known as fair trade provisions or retail price-maintenance agreements, allowed manufacturers to set a minimum resale price for their goods, ensuring retailers sold them at the same price. These laws aimed to protect small businesses from large chain stores that could afford to sell at lower prices.
The Miller-Tydings Act of 1937 exempted these agreements from federal antitrust laws, amending Section 1 of the Sherman Antitrust Act. This effectively legalized contracts prescribing minimum prices for products sold across state lines, as long as the products had a label, trademark, brand, or name of the producer or distributor and were in free competition under local state law.
2 Britannica SourcesCreated from Britannica articles using AI. AI can make mistakes, so verify using Britannica articles. -
How did the Miller-Tydings Act affect the sale prices of products in stores?
The Miller-Tydings Act of 1937 exempted retail price-maintenance agreements in interstate commerce from federal antitrust laws. These agreements, also known as fair-trade laws, allowed manufacturers to set a minimum price at which their goods could be sold by retailers within a state.
The Act was intended to protect small, independent retailers from the lower prices of larger chain stores. Manufacturers supported it, hoping to prevent lower prices from negatively affecting consumer perceptions of their branded goods. Franklin D. Roosevelt, however, opposed such measures over concerns about escalating prices and potential consumer resentment.
2 Britannica SourcesCreated from Britannica articles using AI. AI can make mistakes, so verify using Britannica articles. -
What industries or businesses benefited most from the act?
The Miller-Tydings Act of 1937 aimed to level the playing field between small, independent retailers and larger chain stores by exempting retail price-maintenance agreements from federal antitrust laws.
Manufacturers and independent retailers were the main beneficiaries of fair-trade laws. Manufacturers believed that lower prices would negatively affect consumers' perceptions of quality, diminish the value of branded goods, and reduce sales. Small retailers supported the Act because it attenuated the bulk-purchasing advantage of large chains by establishing floor prices.
1 Britannica SourceCreated from Britannica articles using AI. AI can make mistakes, so verify using Britannica articles. -
Why did later laws and court rulings overturn or change what the Miller-Tydings Act allowed?
The Miller-Tydings Act of 1937, which amended Section 1 of the Sherman Antitrust Act, exempted retail price-maintenance agreements in interstate commerce from federal antitrust laws.
A 1951 Supreme Court ruling in Schwegmann Bros. v. Calvert Distillers invalidated nonsigner clauses to fair-trade laws, which had allowed distributors to take action against parties without contractual arrangements. This ruling, along with lobbying by chain businesses, led to the federal repeal of the Miller-Tydings Act of 1937 on January 1, 1976.
2 Britannica SourcesCreated from Britannica articles using AI. AI can make mistakes, so verify using Britannica articles.
Miller-Tydings Act of 1937, U.S. federal legislation that exempted retail price-maintenance agreements (also known as fair-trade laws or fair-trade provisions) in interstate commerce from federal antitrust laws. Under fair-trade laws, manufacturers created resale price contracts with distributors that required their retailers within a given state to sell “fair-traded” products at the same price. In other words, they set a minimum price at which the goods could be sold. The Miller-Tydings Act, in effect, amended Section 1 of the Sherman Antitrust Act. Miller-Tydings thereby legalized contracts or agreements prescribing minimum prices for the resale of commodity products sold and shipped in interstate commerce bearing a label, trademark, brand, or name of the producer or distributor when such products are in free competition under local state law.
During the 1930s, “mom-and-pop” operations such as druggists, hardware and appliance merchants, and grocery stores began to experience competition from large chain store operations throughout the United States. The chain stores benefited from economies of scale and were frequently able to sell at prices lower than those of their smaller rivals. In an effort to level the competitive playing field, a number of states passed fair-trade laws that heavily taxed chain stores. At the federal level in 1936 Congress enacted the Robinson-Patman Act to prohibit price discrimination by suppliers to small businesses.
Before Miller-Tydings was enacted, various populists suggested that chain stores represent an assault on small businesses. They argued that small businesses, which they identified as the backbone of the American economy, need protection from the predatory pricing practices of ruinous competition. Similarly, some economists and jurists opposed fair-trade laws on the grounds that such laws significantly reduce or even eliminate competition (specifically, small competitors) from the marketplace. Pres. Franklin D. Roosevelt strongly objected to fair-trade provisions on the grounds of potential resentment by consumers, who could then be faced with escalating prices.
" height="20" alt="HEW Logo">
Manufacturers and independent retailers were the main proponents of fair-trade laws. Manufacturing firms supported the passage of fair-trade laws because they worried that lower prices would negatively affect perceptions of quality by consumers, diminish the value of branded goods, and, in turn, ultimately reduce sales. Small independent retailers supported retail price maintenance agreements because such agreements established floor prices that attenuated the bulk-purchasing advantage of large chains.
Congress passed the Miller-Tydings bill on August 17, 1937. The bill was designed to overrule the 1911 U.S. Supreme Court ruling in the Dr. Miles case (Dr. Miles v. John D. Park & Sons), in which the Court held that certain vertical resale price agreements substantially lessened competition as effectively as any horizontal agreement and were in violation of the Sherman Act. Subsequently, by June 30, 1938, resale price-maintenance laws had been enacted in every state except Texas, Missouri, Vermont, Delaware, and Alabama.
A 1951 Supreme Court ruling (Schwegmann Bros. v. Calvert Distillers) invalidated nonsigner clauses to fair-trade laws. Nonsigner clauses had allowed distributors to take action against parties with whom they had no contractual arrangements that limited fair-trade laws. That Supreme Court ruling along with subsequent legislative lobbying efforts by various chain businesses led to the federal repeal of the Miller-Tydings Act of 1937 on January 1, 1976.