H.R. 2782 · 118th Congress
Competitive Prices Act
Key: what the circles and colors mean
Each circle is a bill. The ring fills as it moves through Congress:
Under the number: the Yea · Nay count of its final (or latest) recorded vote. On a member's page, the small badge is how that member voted: Y Yea / Aye, N Nay / No, P Present, – Not voting.
Gold and violet are only for Yea and Nay; they never mean a party. A member's party is the letter on their photo.
Never voted on. It didn't reach a floor vote before the 118th Congress ended, so it expired. A bill has to be introduced again to be considered in a new Congress.
D
PorterSponsor3 cosponsors · 3 D
3 signed on when it was introduced; the rest joined later. Cosponsors who withdrew aren't shown.
This bill makes consciously parallel pricing coordination (i.e., a tacit agreement among two or more persons to raise, lower, change, maintain, or manipulate pricing for the purchase or sale of reasonably interchangeable products or services) a prohibited form of price fixing.
What it does: CRS summary · Introduced in House · Apr 20, 2023
Competitive Prices Act
This bill makes consciously parallel pricing coordination (i.e., a tacit agreement among two or more persons to raise, lower, change, maintain, or manipulate pricing for the purchase or sale of reasonably interchangeable products or services) a prohibited form of price fixing.
In a civil action for a claimed violation, the plaintiff may shift the burden of proof to the defendant by demonstrating that two or more persons (1) engaged in substantially similar conduct within a substantially similar time period with respect to the pricing of reasonably interchangeable products, and (2) had a similar motivation to coordinate their efforts to change or manipulate the pricing of those products or services.
The defendant may rebut such a presumption of a violation by demonstrating the action was motivated by business judgment that is economically rational in the absence of a tacit agreement, such as by showing the action was in response to, or in anticipation of, changing market conditions for the product or service.
If the defendant rebuts the presumption, the plaintiff must demonstrate by a preponderance of the evidence that the defendant entered a tacit agreement to change or manipulate the pricing for the product or service, such as by showing the business judgment of the defendant was not rational in the absence of such a tacit agreement.
Written by the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service. All summary versions on Congress.gov
About this bill and sources
Official title: Competitive Prices Act
Latest action (Apr 20, 2023): Referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary.
Policy area: Agriculture and Food · Origin: House · Introduced: Apr 20, 2023
Official page on Congress.gov · Bill text (GovInfo) · Status record (XML)
No recorded floor vote found.