Because your minimum price is "price-fixing," which is disadvantagous to consumers.
Avvo doesn't pay us for these responses, and I'm not your lawyer just because I answer this question or respond to any follow-up comments. If you want to hire me, please contact me. Otherwise, please don't expect a further response. We need an actual written agreement to form an attorney-client relationship. I'm only licensed in CA and you shouldn't rely on this answer, since each state has different laws, each situation is fact specific, and it's impossible to evaluate a legal problem without a comprehensive consultation and review of all the facts and documents at issue.
This is “retail price maintenance” which cannot be enforced by Agmts among retailers or between retailers and wholesalers or manufacturers. There has been a long history of indirect enforcement by refusal to deal by the wholesaler: “Unless you sell at my prices, I won’t sell you any product.” At times this was permissible. I don’t practice antitrust anymore, so I can’t tell you the current rules on that. You should consult an antitrust lawyer before you spend much money setting this up.
DISCLAIMERâ€”This answer is for informational purposes only under the AVVO system, its terms and conditions. It is not intended as specific legal advice regarding your question. The answer could be different if all the facts were known. This answer does not establish an attorney client relationship. I am admitted only in California. (Bryant) Keith Martin sbbizlaw.com
Under a recent Supreme Court decision, called Leegin, minimum resale price agreements can be justified against antitrust attack if they can be shown, on balance, to be pro-competitive or competitively neutral. The court looks at the business justifications for the arrangement and balances them against any negative effects on competition to determine whether the federal antitrust laws have been violated. The analysis is fact specific and intensive. Prior to the Leegin decision, such agreements were absolutely prohibited under federal antitrust law. Many business people remain under the impression that the previous rule remains in effect. You must also be aware that several states have moved to amend their state antitrust law to, in effect, repeal the conclusion reached by the US Supreme Court in Leegin, and restore prohibition on this kind of pricing agreement. You need to consult an antitrust expert to determine whether the facts of your situation would pass muster under the standard set in the Leegin decision and whether your business is exposed to liability under any state laws. Violation of antitrust laws is a felony, carrying both criminal and civil penalties enforceable by federal and state authorities, and it exposes a violator to very severe monetary damages (known as treble damages), so it's a good idea to get advice in this area before you move forward or invest substantial resources.
In addition to antitrust law exposure, this pricing could potentially be attacked as an unfair business practice or deceptive trade practice under state law.
Please feel free to contact me if you wish to discuss this further. I have been practicing antitrust law for 28 years, and I am very familiar with this area of the law.