## Facts

- The National Fire Protection Association (NFPA), a private nonprofit, develops the National Electrical Code (NEC), a model code frequently adopted by state and local governments.
- Inclusion in the NEC materially affects market access for electrical products in jurisdictions that adopt the code.
- Indian Head, Inc. manufactured plastic (PVC) electrical conduit and sought its inclusion in the NEC.
- Allied Tube & Conduit Corp., a major steel conduit manufacturer, opposed the proposal.
- NFPA voting at its annual meeting was open to individual members who paid a modest fee.
- Allied recruited and paid or reimbursed membership fees for numerous new members aligned with its position and coordinated their participation to vote against the proposal.
- The proposal to approve PVC conduit was defeated at the annual meeting, despite earlier committee-level recommendations supporting inclusion.
- Indian Head sued, alleging a conspiracy in restraint of trade under § 1 of the Sherman Act based on Allied’s coordinated manipulation of the NFPA vote.

## Issues

1. Whether Noerr-Pennington and the First Amendment immunize concerted efforts to influence a private standard-setting association whose standards are often adopted into law.
2. Whether coordinated “packing” and manipulation of a private standard-setting process to exclude a rival product can constitute a restraint of trade under Sherman Act § 1.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court affirmed judgment for Indian Head.
- Noerr-Pennington immunity did not apply because the challenged conduct targeted a private association’s internal decisionmaking, not governmental officials or a governmental process.
- The mere fact that governments often adopt the NEC did not convert the NFPA into a governmental body or make manipulation of its vote equivalent to petitioning the government.
- Antitrust liability may attach where competitors concertedly distort a private standard-setting process to restrain competition, including by exclusion of a rival technology from a widely used standard.
- The antitrust judgment addressed the manner of influence (vote manipulation), not the act of expressing or advocating a position.

## Legal Principles

- Noerr-Pennington immunity is limited to joint efforts to petition or influence governmental decisionmakers; it does not automatically extend to efforts aimed at private standard-setting bodies, even when their standards may later be incorporated into law.
- Private standard-setting can have major market effects; when participants use coordinated, exclusionary tactics to manipulate the process, their conduct can constitute concerted action in restraint of trade under Sherman Act § 1.
- First Amendment concerns do not require immunity for commercially motivated, concerted conduct that restrains competition; antitrust law may regulate anticompetitive methods of influencing private outcomes while leaving room for good-faith advocacy on technical or policy grounds.

## Conclusion

The Court held that a dominant firm’s coordinated scheme to pack and control voting in a private standard-setting organization to block a competitor’s product from a widely adopted code is not protected petitioning activity and may be condemned as a Sherman Act § 1 restraint of trade.


Allied Tube & Conduit Corp. v. Indian Head, Inc., 486 U.S. 492 (1988)