price fixing

Violation of federal antitrust law. Some products compete to set the price of their products to prevent real competition and protect the public from price competition. (See also antitrust law)

Price operation, price agreement between competitors ("horizontal type") or between manufacturers, wholesalers, and retailers ("vertical type"). According to the Antimonopoly Act or Competition Law, many fixed price contracts are illegal (although not all). Illegal acts may be prosecuted by government criminal or civil law enforcement officials, or private organizations suffering economic loss as a result of that act. Examples of horizontal price fixing contracts include adjustment of sales conditions such as contracts that comply with price lists or ranges, minimum or maximum price setting, joint sales promotion price or price limited advertisement, credit, markup, discount, discount or discount , And standardization of specific prices. Products and service packs

A company that repairs the price by buying and selling goods and services at a price agreed with one or more competing companies. These companies usually determine the price at a horizontal or vertical price. Horizontal pricing occurs when an enterprise decides to determine the price or price level of a product or service on a premium or discount. For example, some retailers may decide television selling prices at higher prices to obtain higher profits. The retailer may also agree to determine the price of the television at a discounted price. In this case, consumers are more likely to buy from mutually related businesses, not from businesses that have never participated in sales operations.

Since 1997, the US courts have classified prices into two categories. Maximum price of vertical type and horizontal type. The vertical price includes the price when the manufacturer wishes to manage the product at retail. In State Oil Co. v. Khan's lawsuit, the US Supreme Court judged that vertical pricing was no longer considered a breach of the Sherman Act itself, but horizontal pricing was still considered a breach of the Sherman Act. Also, in 2008, the US v. LG display, the US v. China Picture tube, and the US v. Sharp defendants agreed to change the price of LCD monitors by paying a total of $ 585 million in northern California . This is the second highest amount in history according to the Sherman Act.