Skip to main content
HR 1236 101th Congress House Commerce Antitrust actions Antitrust law Evidence (Law) Price fixing Resale price maintenance

Price Fixing Prevention Act of 1989

Introduced: March 2, 1989 See on congress.gov
 Everywhere this bill has been 31 steps
Introduced
In committee
Reported out
Passed House
Passed Senate
To President
Became law
May 17, 1990
Placed on Senate Legislative Calendar under General Orders. Calendar No. 556.
May 17, 1990
Senate Committee on Judiciary discharged by Unanimous Consent.
Apr 19, 1990
Received in the Senate and read twice and referred to the Committee on Judiciary.
Apr 18, 1990
Motion to reconsider laid on the table Agreed to without objection.
Apr 18, 1990
On passage Passed by recorded vote: 235 - 157 (Roll No. 74).
Apr 18, 1990
Passed/agreed to in House: On passage Passed by recorded vote: 235 - 157 (Roll No. 74).
Apr 18, 1990
On motion to recommit Failed by voice vote.
Apr 18, 1990
The previous question was ordered without objection.
Apr 18, 1990
Mr. Fish moved to recommit to Judiciary.
Apr 18, 1990
The House adopted the amendment as agreed to by the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union.
Apr 18, 1990
The previous question was ordered pursuant to the rule.
Apr 18, 1990
The House rose from the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union to report H.R. 1236.
Apr 18, 1990
Mr. Douglas suggested the absence of a quorum and a quorum call was ordered. Prior to the Call in Committee, the Chair announced that the time for a recorded vote on the pending Douglas amendment, if ordered, would be reduced to five minutes in length.
Apr 18, 1990
GENERAL DEBATE - The Committee of the Whole proceeded with one hour of general debate.
Apr 18, 1990
The Speaker designated the Honorable David E. Skaggs to act as Chairman of the Committee.
Apr 18, 1990
House resolved itself into the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union pursuant to H. Res. 373 and Rule XXIII.
Apr 18, 1990
Rule provides for consideration of H.R. 1236 with 1 hour of general debate. Previous question shall be considered as ordered without intervening motions except motion to recommit. Measure will be read by section. Bill is open to amendments.
Apr 18, 1990
Considered under the provisions of rule H. Res. 373.
Apr 18, 1990
Rule H. Res. 373 passed House.
Apr 3, 1990
Rules Committee Resolution H. Res. 373 Reported to House. Rule provides for consideration of H.R. 1236 with 1 hour of general debate. Previous question shall be considered as ordered without intervening motions except motion to recommit. Measure will be read by section. Bill is open to amendments.
Mar 29, 1990
Placed on the Union Calendar, Calendar No. 270.
Mar 29, 1990
Reported by the Committee on Judiciary. H. Rept. 101-438.
Jun 20, 1989
Committee Consideration and Mark-up Session Held.
Jun 20, 1989
Ordered to be Reported.
Jun 15, 1989
Subcommittee Consideration and Mark-up Session Held.
Jun 15, 1989
Forwarded by Subcommittee to Full Committee.
Apr 14, 1989
Executive Comment Received from Justice.
Mar 23, 1989
Executive Comment Requested from Justice.
Mar 20, 1989
Referred to the Subcommittee on Economic and Commercial Law.
Mar 2, 1989
Referred to the House Committee on Judiciary.
Mar 2, 1989
Introduced in House
 Votes taken on this bill 1
DateChamberWhat was voted onResultYes–No
Apr 18, 1990 House · vote #74 On Passage Passed 235157 See who voted →
 Plain-English summary Congressional Research Service

Price Fixing Prevention Act of 1989 - Provides that in any civil action alleging a contract, combination, or conspiracy to set, change, or maintain prices (other than a maximum price) under the Sherman Antitrust Act: (1) evidence that a person who sells a good or service to the claimant for resale received from a competitor a communication regarding price competition by the claimant and in response terminated the claimant as a buyer (or refused to supply such goods or services) shall be sufficient to raise the inference that such person and such competitor engaged in concerted action to set, change, or maintain prices in violation of such Act (in such case, a termination or refusal to supply is in response to a communication if such communication is a substantial contributing cause of such termination or refusal to supply); (2) the fact that the seller and the purchaser of a good or service entered into an agreement shall be sufficient to constitute a violation of such Act; and (3) an agreement between the seller and the purchaser to terminate another purchaser as a dealer or to refuse to supply such other purchaser because of that purchaser's pricing policies shall constitute a violation of such Act, whether or not a specific price level is agreed upon.

What's happening now May 17, 1990

Placed on Senate Legislative Calendar under General Orders. Calendar No. 556.

 Committees of jurisdiction 3