## Facts

- American Column & Lumber Co. and other members of the American Hardwood Manufacturers’ Association (AHMA) produced roughly one-third of U.S. hardwood lumber output.
- In 1918, AHMA adopted an “Open Competition Plan” for systematic collection and distribution of detailed business information among member competitors.
- Members submitted frequent reports to a central office disclosing sensitive competitive data, including stocks on hand, production, shipments, prices obtained, and purchaser information.
- The association’s central office compiled and redistributed analytical summaries and market reports to members.
- The plan included interpretive “market letters” from an association agent that provided guidance and suggestions about future production and prices.
- Members held frequent meetings (including regional group meetings) to discuss the reports, market conditions, and production plans.
- The United States alleged the plan functioned to coordinate curtailment of output and increase prices in interstate commerce; defendants argued the plan was merely informational, lacked any express price-fixing agreement, and that price increases resulted from market conditions.

## Issues

1. Whether competitors’ participation in a trade association plan involving continuous, detailed exchange of business data, interpretive market guidance, and coordinated discussions constituted a combination or conspiracy in restraint of interstate trade under the Sherman Act.
2. Whether a Sherman Act violation may be found without proof of an explicit agreement to fix prices or restrict production.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court affirmed a permanent injunction barring continuation of the Open Competition Plan.
- The Court held that the plan was intended to and did restrict competition in interstate commerce by curtailing production and increasing prices.
- The Court concluded that the coordinated system of detailed reporting, centralized analysis, suggestions on future conduct, and member meetings constituted an unlawful combination and conspiracy under the Sherman Act even absent a formal price-fixing contract.
- Justices Holmes and Brandeis dissented, disputing the inference of conspiracy from information sharing and warning against condemning ordinary statistical exchanges without clearer proof of unlawful coordination.

## Legal Principles

- The Sherman Act can be violated through organized, ongoing cooperative conduct among competitors that, in purpose and effect, suppresses competition, even without an express promise to fix prices or limit output.
- Competitor information exchanges may be unlawful when they involve full, detailed disclosures of sensitive business data, are centrally processed and redistributed, and are paired with guidance on future pricing or production and coordinated discussions that facilitate parallel action.
- Trade association activity is not presumptively illegal, but association mechanisms that enable members to act collectively on price and output may constitute an unlawful restraint of trade.

## Conclusion

The Court upheld injunctive relief because the association’s “open competition” program, in operation, functioned as a coordinated device for competitors to manage output and prices, amounting to a Sherman Act combination restraining interstate commerce despite the absence of an explicit price-fixing agreement.


American Column & Lumber Co. v. United States, 257 U.S. 377 (1921)