|
4130 REVIEW DENIED Packaging two items as a unit at a single price that customers are likely to find attractive is not an unlawful tying arrangement in violation of antitrust law, and therefore does not give rise to an action under the Cartwright Act, the Unfair Competition Law, or for interference with prospective economic advantage, so summary disposition was properly entered in actions based on that claim; the Commerce Clause of the U.S. Constitution does not prevent California's Antitrust and Unfair Competition Laws from reaching out-of-state conduct injuring California residents, and since questions of fact exist about whether a company's subsidiary created an unlawful tying arrangement by requiring purchasers of its service also to purchase a service offered by the parent company and whether the parent company is liable under an alter ego theory, summary disposition should not have been granted in its favor in such an action.CitationRLH INDUSTRIES v SBC COMMUNICATIONS (High Voltage Protection) 133 CA4 1277 [See: B&PC 16720, 17200 etseq; Morrison v Viacom 66 CA4 534, T/AT 4/97; Cel-Tech v LA Cellular 20 C4 163, T/AT 5/99; Della Penna v Toyota 11 C4 376, T/AT 12/95]
|
|
