A Brief Review and Assessment of the Leegin Decision: Who Wins and Who Loses When Manufacturers Are Free to Set Retail Prices?

For decades, it has been a per se violation of U.S. antitrust law for manufacturers or distributors to specify retail selling prices. In the spirit of atomistic, unrestrained competition, retailers were free to set prices without undue interference from upstream channel participants. Attempts by manufacturers or other channel participants to restrict retail price setting initiatives were viewed by regulators as an unwarranted and illegal interference with the market mechanism. Restrictions on price setting initiatives would, it was argued, lessen competition and ultimately raise prices above competitive levels to the detriment of consumers. Recently, under the leadership of newly appointed Chief Justice Roberts, a more “business friendly” Supreme Court has reversed this policy; vertical price fixing is no longer a per se violation of U.S. antitrust law. By a five‐to‐four margin, the Court held in Leegin Creative Leather Products that manufacturers could, under certain circumstances, establish binding retail selling prices. Henceforth, retail price setting restrictions will be subject to a rule of reason evaluation whereby price restrictions will be assessed on a case‐by‐case basis. Proponents of the now‐legal restrictions argue that this will ensure that merchandise sold through retail outlets will receive needed support, free riding will be reduced or eliminated, and new brand introduction will be facilitated. Critics argue that the Court's decision marks a return to the days of fair trading; marginal firms will be protected, so‐called “inframarginal consumers” will be forced to pay for services they do not want or need, and prices for many branded products will rise, all to the detriment of consumer welfare.     

Prescription Drug Labeling and “Over‐Warning”: The Disturbing Case of Diana Levine and Wyeth Pharmaceutical

In April of 2000, Diana Levine went to a clinic in Vermont suffering from a migraine headache. She was given the drug Demerol for the migraine symptoms and Phenergan for nausea. Complications with the administration of Phenergan ultimately resulted in Ms. Levine contracting gangrene, necessitating the amputation of her right arm. Ms. Levine sued the drug maker, Wyeth Pharmaceutical, in state court and prevailed. The lower court's decision was appealed by Wyeth to the state supreme court where the ruling was confirmed. Wyeth next appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court which, to the surprise of many observers, affirmed the judgment of the state supreme court. At issue was the fundamental question of the ability of consumers to obtain redress against negligent manufacturers in state courts. Wyeth's arguments to the Court were based upon preemption: Foodand Drug Administration (FDA) approval of a drug (and its labeling) preempts the ability of injured consumers like Ms. Levine to recover in state courts despite years of precedent to the contrary. Ability to recover damages in state courts represents, perhaps, the most important safety net available to consumers injured by defective products. A ruling by the Supreme Court that FDA‐approved labeling of pharmaceuticals preempts the reach of the state courts would have severely compromised the balance of power between consumers and producers.     

Legislating Professionals: Private Bills for Entry to Practise Professions in Ontario, 1868–1914

Abstract  While states are clearly crucial to the establishment and regulation of professions, there is little consensus over the nature of the relationship between professions and the state. This paper explores profession-state relations, through a case study of the Ontario government's historical practice of granting individual petitioners the right to circumvent requirements for entry to practise established by professional bodies. Through this practice, the Ontario legislature implicitly challenged professions' right to determine competence and expertise. While some have argued that states regulate professions to regulate expertise, this analysis suggests that state acceptance of professional expertise was a gradual process that came several decades after the establishment of professions in the province.     

Professionalization,Gender and Female‐dominated Professions: Dental Hygiene in Ontario*

Cet article explore L'influence des rapports sociaux entre les sexes et du féminisme sur les professions à majorité féminine au moyen d'une étude de cas en hygiène dentaire en Ontario. Le statut professionnel à part entière a échappéà plusieurs de ces professions, y compris L'hygiène dentaire. Historiquement, cette dernière était définie comme un travail pour les femmes, àêtre exécuté sous la stricte surveillance des dentistes hommes. Récemment, L'hygiène dentaire a poursuivi un projet de reconnaissance professionnelle et lutté pour une plus grande indépendance à L'endroit de la dentisterie. Les idées issues des rapports sociaux entre les sexes et particulièrement du féminisme y ont occupé une place centrale. This paper explores the influence of gender and feminism on the professional projects of female‐dominated professions, through a case study of dental hygiene in Ontario. Full professional status has eluded many female‐dominated professions, including dental hygiene. Historically, dental hygiene was defined as work for women, to be performed strictly under the control of male dentists. In recent years, dental hygiene has pursued a professional project and struggled for greater independence from dentistry. Ideas about gender and, particularly, feminism have been central to their professional project.     

The Power of The Right Stuff: A Quasi-Experimental Field Test of the Docudrama Hypothesis

A field test of 966 moviegoers found that a significant numberof them were favorably influenced toward John Glenn's candidacyfor president by the film The Right Stuff. The docudrama reinforcedpositive images of Glenn and sustained those impressions fora longer than expected period.