Price gouging enforcement is at an all-time high, but many ambiguities about the application of these state laws remain. Among the many questions left unanswered: what does a statute mean when it says “trade area” or “market area”? Many laws refer to the price at which the same or similar good or service is available in the “trade area” or “market area,” but do not provide a definition. Does it mean goods or services sold within a city or county? Or the entire state? What about sellers who offer goods or services in an area that borders another state, especially one without a price gouging law? With no direction provided, antitrust law principles may provide some guidance.

Florida’s price gouging law, for example, provides that a price is unconscionable if “[t]he amount charged grossly exceeds the average price at which the same or similar commodity was readily obtainable in the trade area during the 30 days immediately prior to a declaration of a state of emergency . . . .” Fla. Stat. § 501.160(1)(b). Under Kansas’ price gouging law, the trigger is “[w]hether the amount charged by the supplier during the time of disaster grossly exceeded the price at which the same or similar property or services were readily obtainable by other consumers in the trade area . . . .” Kan. Stat. Ann. §50-6, 106(b)(1). In New York a price is unconscionably excessive if, among other things, “[t]he amount charged grossly exceeded the price at which the same or similar goods or services were readily obtainable in the trade area.” N.Y. Gen. Bus. Law § 396-r(2).

Other states refer to “market area.” Louisiana, for example, includes the prohibition, “prices charged or value received for goods and services sold within the designated emergency area may not exceed the prices ordinarily charged for comparable goods and services in the same market area at or immediately before the time of the state of emergency . . . .” La. Rev. Stat. Ann. §29:732. Mississippi’s price gouging law similarly refers to the “same market area.” Miss. Code. Ann. § 75-24-25.

Some states provide more clarity with respect to geographical scope. For example, Oregon’s price gouging statute provides that a price is unconscionably excessive if “[t]he amount charged for the essential consumer goods or services exceeds by 15 percent or more the price at which the same or similar consumer goods or services were readily obtainable by other consumers in or near the geographical area covered by the declaration of an abnormal disruption of the market.” Or. Rev. Stat. §401.965(3). Oregon’s state of emergency is statewide, which arguably means that a seller may be liable for price gouging anywhere in the state.

In defining what constitutes a relevant trade area, courts have held that “trade area” is not necessarily “equivalent to a relevant geographic market.” Little Rock Cardiology Clinic PA v. Baptist Health. “[T]rade area considers the extent to which customers will travel in order to do business [with a seller] . . . [r]elevant market considers the extent to which customers will travel in order to avoid doing business [with a seller] . . . .” Bathke v. Casey’s Gen. Stores, Inc. (internal quotations omitted). However, “trade area” can be defined as “the market area in which [a] seller operates,” which is more akin to a relevant geographic market under antitrust law. Little Rock Cardiology Clinic PA, Id. at 598. The application of price gouging statutes that refer to a “trade area” may therefore be informed by antitrust law when determining what a seller’s “trade area” is.

As explained in our blog post, Pricing in An Emergency: Where Price Gouging Meets Antitrust, antitrust and price gouging enforcement are connected by a shared purpose—consumer protection. They are also statutorily related, often employing similar statutory terms. Price gouging enforcement actions and lawsuits accordingly may be expected to turn to antitrust principles for guidance. As more lawsuits continue to be filed, businesses should be familiar with applicable state laws in determining the geographical scope of pricing restrictions.

*      *      *

Visit Proskauer on Price Gouging for antitrust insights on COVID-19.

*      *      *

Proskauer’s cross-disciplinary, cross-jurisdictional Coronavirus Response Team is focused on supporting and addressing client concerns. Visit our Coronavirus Resource Center for guidance on risk management measures, practical steps businesses can take and resources to help manage ongoing operations.

Photo of Christopher E. Ondeck Christopher E. Ondeck

Chris Ondeck is co-chair of the Firm’s nationwide Antitrust Group. He represents clients in civil and criminal antitrust litigation, defending mergers and acquisitions before the U.S. antitrust agencies, defending companies involved in government investigations, and providing antitrust counseling.

Chris has handled antitrust matters…

Chris Ondeck is co-chair of the Firm’s nationwide Antitrust Group. He represents clients in civil and criminal antitrust litigation, defending mergers and acquisitions before the U.S. antitrust agencies, defending companies involved in government investigations, and providing antitrust counseling.

Chris has handled antitrust matters for clients in a number of industries, including advertising, aerospace, alcoholic beverages, appliances, building materials, consumer products, defense, franchise, medical devices, metals, mining, natural resources, oil and gas, packaging, pharmaceuticals, software and telecommunications. He also has developed substantial experience advising clients regarding the application of the antitrust laws to the pharmaceutical industry, the agriculture industry, trade associations and the energy industry.

Photo of John R. Ingrassia John R. Ingrassia

When competition or antitrust questions arise, John Ingrassia is sought out for his knowledge, reputation and credentials.

John is a recognized authority on Hart-Scott-Rodino antitrust merger review, and for more than 20 years has counselled businesses facing the most challenging antitrust issues and…

When competition or antitrust questions arise, John Ingrassia is sought out for his knowledge, reputation and credentials.

John is a recognized authority on Hart-Scott-Rodino antitrust merger review, and for more than 20 years has counselled businesses facing the most challenging antitrust issues and helped them stay out of the crosshairs — whether its distribution, pricing, channel management, mergers, acquisitions or joint ventures.

John is a senior counsel at the Firm, advising on the full range of antitrust matters in diverse industries, including chemicals, pharmaceutical, medical devices, telecommunications, financial services and health care, among others.  His practice focuses on the analysis and resolution of antitrust issues related to mergers, acquisitions, and joint ventures, and the analysis and assessment of pre-merger notification requirements. John has extensive experience with the legal, practical, and technical requirements of merger clearance and is regularly invited to participate in Federal Trade Commission and bar association meetings regarding Hart-Scott-Rodino practice issues.

Photo of Kelly Landers Hawthorne Kelly Landers Hawthorne

Kelly Landers Hawthorne is an associate in the Litigation Department.

While at Columbia, she served as an articles editor of the Columbia Journal of Law & the Arts and was involved with the Lawyering in the Digital Age Clinic.  She also worked as…

Kelly Landers Hawthorne is an associate in the Litigation Department.

While at Columbia, she served as an articles editor of the Columbia Journal of Law & the Arts and was involved with the Lawyering in the Digital Age Clinic.  She also worked as a judicial intern for the Honorable Sandra Townes of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York.

Kelly is a Teach For America alumnus and taught middle school special education and math in Washington, D.C. prior to law school.

Photo of Nathaniel Miller Nathaniel Miller

Nat Miller is an associate in the Litigation Department.

Nat earned a J.D. degree from NYU School of Law, where he was a Managing Editor of the Journal of Law & Business, and a B.A. from Harvard University. While at NYU Law, he…

Nat Miller is an associate in the Litigation Department.

Nat earned a J.D. degree from NYU School of Law, where he was a Managing Editor of the Journal of Law & Business, and a B.A. from Harvard University. While at NYU Law, he worked as a research assistant for Professor Arthur R. Miller on his treatise, Federal Practice and Procedure. After law school, Nat served as a law clerk to the Honorable Claria Horn Boom of the Eastern and Western Districts of Kentucky.

Photo of Nicollette R. Moser Nicollette R. Moser

Nicollette Moser is an associate in the Litigation Department and a member of the Antitrust Group.

Photo of Jennifer Tarr Jennifer Tarr

Jennifer E. Tarr is an associate in the Litigation Department.