In CASE 16.1 Leegin Creative Leather Products, Inc. v. PSKS,…

In CASE 16.1 Leegin Creative Leather Products, Inc. v. PSKS, Inc. (2007), Leegin instituted a retail pricing and promotion policy and refused to sell to retailers that discounted Brighton goods below Leegin’s suggested retail prices. PSKS sued Leegin, alleging that Leegin had violated the antitrust laws by “enter[ing] into agreements with retailers to charge only those prices fixed by Leegin.” The court agreed with PSKS that it is per se illegal for a manufacturer to agree with its distributor to set the minimum price that the distributor can charge for the manufacturer’s goods. The appeal of this decision involved a question of whether _____ should be analyzed under the _____.