In June, the Supreme Court revisited the per se ban on resale price maintenance. In a 5-4 opinion, the Court, in <i>Leegin Creative Leather Products v. PSKS, Inc.</i>, overruled nearly a century of precedent, and adopted a 'rule of reason' analysis that allows an alleged violator to attempt to justify price controls. As a result, news reports predicted widespread changes in resale price agreements and a decline in competitive discounts, giving the impression that companies are now free to impose price controls with little or no oversight, without fear of legal consequence, regardless of the specific nature of their products. The actual ruling, however, is neither so sweeping nor revolutionary. It is not an endorsement of resale-price controls in every case, or even in most cases. Companies that engage in resale-price maintenance may no longer face a charge of per se illegality, but they must tread extremely carefully in what is still dangerous territory.
David C. ReymannThe story described below may be a familiar one to companies ' primarily physical ones and ones that are entirely 'e.'
Your company makes a product that it sells through various retailers or distributors. Over the years, you've worked hard to maintain the product's premium image, encouraged vigorous marketing and customer service by resellers, and maintained the peace among competing retail outlets.
ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE SINGLE SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS, PRACTICAL INSIGHTS, AND NEWS IN LawJournalNewsletters
Already have an account? Sign In Now
For enterprise-wide or corporate access, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or call 1-877-256-2473.
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2026 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
Letter Agreement Between Landlord and Tenant Did Not Extinguish GuarantyTreble Damage Award Upheld; Landlord Failed to Establish Overcharge Was Not WillfulDenying Access to Landlord Constituted Breach Entitling Landlord to PossessionTenant Entitled to Yellowstone Injunction With Respect to Taxes and Sewer Charges
New York is one of the first states to adopt laws to regulate artificial intelligence use in advertising and to strengthen post-mortem publicity rights regarding AI-generated replicas and “synthetic performers.” Given the state’s role as a bellwether for consumer-protection and advertising regulation, these new laws, combined with the state’s broader AI legislative framework, represent a shift toward transparency, consent and accountability.
State app store age verification regimes do more than reallocate responsibility between platforms and developers. They create a new data supply chain for age knowledge, one that can move COPPA questions from “do we ask age?” to “what do we do when the platform tells us?” The teams that handle this best will treat platform age signals as sensitive compliance inputs: minimize them, tightly control where they flow, and design product behavior so that minors do not trigger unnecessary collection or disclosure.
The firms leading right now chose to ask what would become possible if they managed the entire revenue lifecycle — from invoice generation to cash receipt — in one place, and what AI could actually accomplish with complete data instead of partial feeds. That is the Power of One.
A recent decision from the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York (SDNY), United States v. Heppner, has generated outsized commentary suggesting that the use of generative AI tools may jeopardize attorney-client privilege. A closer reading shows something far less dramatic.
