GW to ban all online sales

[scadugenga]

Price fixing, a tango for two.

Required supplier and vendor to conspire.

So how is that at all relevant to GW choosing to limit who they supply to?

Horizontal Price Fixing is a two (or more) party collusion. EG: the Sharp, LG, CPT case I referenced earlier.

But that's only the tip of what price fixing is. If you want to remain ignorant of the scope of the law, that's fine, but it only further weakens any argument you may make.

Vertical Price Fixing is what a manufacturer does when they attempt to manipulate the marketplace unfairly to their advantage by trying to limit availability of purchase, discounts, price-setting, etc.

If you fail to see, understand, research or otherwise approach the issue with a grasp of the subject, then you're either just trolling, or you have your head fully stuck in the sands of denial, ostrich-style.

[Wolfshade]

The only thing that GW could be accused of is trying to enforce a minimum price for other distributors, that is against England and Wales competition law, however under certain circumstances it is perfectly legal, GW cannot sell their items below production cost as it is again against competition law, therefore they can force a minimum price.
The 3rd party sales must be at least GWs cost otherwise they would fall foul of the same issue and arguably slightly higher in order to cover their own costs also.

[daboarder]

Aside from the questionable legality of this move, I think this is going to backfire on GW substantially. Their sales figures are already tanking (last year was the first time they have held in 4 years), whats likely to happen to them if the american online stores literally stop stocking their product?

Not to mention enforcing this is going to be a ***** for them.

[Mr Mystery]

Horizontal Price Fixing is a two (or more) party collusion. EG: the Sharp, LG, CPT case I referenced earlier.

But that's only the tip of what price fixing is. If you want to remain ignorant of the scope of the law, that's fine, but it only further weakens any argument you may make.

Vertical Price Fixing is what a manufacturer does when they attempt to manipulate the marketplace unfairly to their advantage by trying to limit availability of purchase, discounts, price-setting, etc.

If you fail to see, understand, research or otherwise approach the issue with a grasp of the subject, then you're either just trolling, or you have your head fully stuck in the sands of denial, ostrich-style.

Still takes two, even with vertical. Supplier and vendor agree that the retail price will be x, regardless of cost of supply. So again, who is exactly is GW colluding with here?

[scadugenga]

Still takes two, even with vertical. Supplier and vendor agree that the retail price will be x, regardless of cost of supply. So again, who is exactly is GW colluding with here?

When vertical, the supplier doesn't get a choice. It's usually the supplier (when dealing with things in civil court) that files suit under the anti trust accts. if they are pursued criminally, it's the gov that charges the manufacturer.

[Wolfshade]

There are also three other things to consider that I think you are over looking scadugenga.
Firstly, the hobby is tabletop wargaming and GW has not to my knowledge formed a cartel to push all wargaming prices up, remember 40k is not the hobby, tabletop wargaming is.
Secondly, the price of the object maybe an intrisnic part of the product, lest we forget Levi banned Tesco from selling their jeans at half the RRP because "the effects on its brand of the cost cuts, and of the sale of its clothes in supermarkets".
Thirdly, banning people from selling bitz has precedence all over the place. As previously mentioned there are the concerns that any injury from misuse of the product would leave GW culpable (at least in part), and also, GW produce their product and have a right to determine how it is displayed/sold, in the same way that you cannot re-sell individual packs of crisps from a multi-pack, or cans of coke

[Renegade]

I don't think that the Sherman Act (1890) and Clayton act (1914) are going to be enforceable in this instance.

GW is a UK Plc, so can simply wind down its US side and flip the US courts the two finger salute. Of course it also depends on whether the retailers are contractually bound to UK (English) law, as I know a few big companies do, so recourse under US law would be breach of contract.

[Caitsidhe]

I don't think that the Sherman Act (1890) and Clayton act (1914) are going to be enforceable in this instance.

Probably not but while interesting this is irrelevant anyway. I'll explain why below:

GW is a UK Plc, so can simply wind down its US side and flip the US courts the two finger salute. Of course it also depends on whether the retailers are contractually bound to UK (English) law, as I know a few big companies do, so recourse under US law would be breach of contract.

A significant part of Games Workshop's market is located in the United States. I suspect they could give the whole U.S. market the two-fingered salute but I wouldn't expect them to survive. The problem is you are talking about this issue as if American independents are going to try to sue Games Workshop. They won't. They will continue to function as they did before and just bypass the policy. All the weight and cost of trying to enforce this is going to go on the shoulders of Games Workshop. Good luck with that. Why would anyone bother to sue Games Workshop over something they can simply ignore or go around?

[Defenestratus]

[url]http://natfka.blogspot.com/2013/03/games-workshop-is-about-to-jump-into.html[/url]

Looks like there's fire to the smoke perhaps.

[Daemonette666]

A mate of mine who has 3 or more businesses, but does not own anything to do with miniature wargaming, said that GW could not enforce it, and there was an easy way around it. if you own a bricks and mortar shop, and you own an online store, you need not create a paper trail, just sell the stock AT COST to your online company which is a separate company from the bricks and mortar store. GW can not force you to show your sales records detailing who was sold the items and for how much.

He also said there was another way around it. You have a lot of 30% off sales. Mark the recommended online retail price as the ammount GW set it at, and then for reasons like stock building up, warehouse clearance to save costs, etc, you have a sale. If you combine this with the previous way around it using 2 companies and selling stock to the other at whole sale price, then it should work around the GW price fixing scheme.