-
Eleventh Circuit Re-Lights Christmas Tree Vertical Pricing Case
11/03/2026On September 21, 2026, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit revived plaintiff OJ Commerce LLC’s vertical price restraint case against defendant National Christmas Products LLC. OJ Commerce, LLC v. National Christmas Products, LLC, et al., No. 25-11765 (11th Cir. Sept. 21, 2026). Plaintiff alleges defendant entered into agreements with Amazon to inflate online retail prices in violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act. In reversing the dismissal by the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida, the Eleventh Circuit held that plaintiff plausibly alleged an agreement to set discriminatory price floors for non-Amazon retailers, increasing prices in the U.S. market for online artificial Christmas tree sales above competitive levels.
Plaintiff is an online retailer that sells a variety of products, including artificial Christmas trees. Plaintiff alleges that defendant, an artificial Christmas tree manufacturer, entered into a “minimum margin agreement” and a “product restraint agreement” with Amazon in March 2020. Defendant allegedly agreed to set prices for sales to all other online retailers, including plaintiff, at a floor price calculated by adding its wholesale price to a “minimum margin guarantee.” Plaintiff further alleges that defendant agreed to compensate Amazon whenever defendant’s products sold below that floor price. Under the “product restraint agreement,” defendant purportedly agreed to prevent other retailers from discounting its products. After plaintiff attempted to sell defendant’s products below the prices for which the products were sold on Amazon’s websites, defendant allegedly cut off plaintiff’s artificial tree supply. Plaintiff responded by filing suit against defendant, alleging an unlawful agreement in restraint of trade violative of Section 1 of the Sherman Act. Plaintiff also asserted state-law claims.
Alleged vertical restraints—like those between a manufacturer and a retailer—are generally evaluated under the rule of reason. Under that framework, a plaintiff challenging vertical restraints must sufficiently plead an anticompetitive effect in a relevant market by alleging either actual anticompetitive effects or the defendant’s market power plus potential anticompetitive effects.
According to plaintiff, defendant’s 50% market share of artificial Christmas tree sales constituted market dominance and enabled enforcement of the restraints. Plaintiff alleges that the arrangements produced supracompetitive increases in artificial Christmas tree prices, including market-wide “double-digit” hikes and increases of more than 15% for top-selling products. Plaintiff further alleges that the alleged conspiracy is the only plausible explanation for the price jump: defendant’s wholesale prices remained stable while prices for consumer goods overall fell during the same period.
The district court accepted plaintiff’s market definition without analyzing it, as defendant did not raise market definition as a ground for dismissal. Although the district court expressed skepticism that a 50% market share sufficed to allege market power for a vertical restraint-of-trade claim, it assumed without deciding that plaintiff adequately alleged market power and instead held that plaintiff’s allegations of the scheme’s anticompetitive effects lacked sufficient specificity. Specifically, the district court reasoned that plaintiff failed to allege that the 15% price increase for top-selling products occurred in the defined relevant market or to articulate how plaintiff calculated market-wide “double-digit” price increases. The district court also dismissed plaintiff’s claims against defendant’s officers and affiliates for lack of personal jurisdiction and declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over plaintiff’s state-law claims.
The Eleventh Circuit disagreed. Like the district court, it assumed without deciding that plaintiff sufficiently defined a relevant market. On plaintiff’s allegations of anticompetitive harm, the Eleventh Circuit faulted the district court for considering each allegation in isolation instead of evaluating them holistically. Where the district court found that plaintiff’s allegation that market-wide price increases reached “double digits” lacked specificity and that plaintiff had failed to tie its alleged 15% increase for top-selling products to the entire market, the Eleventh Circuit read plaintiff’s complaint as alleging that the agreements drove prices more than 15% above competitive market levels. In sum, the Eleventh Circuit concluded that plaintiff plausibly alleged an actual-effects claim under Section 1 of the Sherman Act.
Although the district court found that plaintiff had not articulated the basis for calculating the alleged price increase, the Eleventh Circuit explained that antitrust plaintiffs are not subject to a heightened pleading standard requiring them to explain their methodology or market data. The Eleventh Circuit concluded that neither defendant nor the district court had identified any authority requiring an antitrust plaintiff to plead its price impact calculation methodology or market data analysis.
The Eleventh Circuit reversed and remanded the case for further proceedings. Plaintiff did not appeal the district court’s dismissal of claims against defendant manufacturer’s officers and affiliates or its decision to decline supplemental jurisdiction over plaintiff’s state-law claims.
Antitrust Litigation