## Facts

- White Motor Company manufactured trucks and distributed them through independent distributors and dealers under franchise agreements.
- The United States filed a civil antitrust action alleging violations of Sherman Act §§ 1 and 3 based on White’s franchise practices.
- The challenged agreements included:
  - Exclusive territorial assignments restricting where distributors and dealers could sell.
  - Customer limitations restricting sales to certain persons or classes of customers.
  - Limits on sales to governmental entities and other large customers without White’s permission.
  - Price-fixing provisions setting resale prices for trucks/parts sold through the distribution chain and for certain retail parts/accessory sales.
- The United States sought summary judgment, asserting the restraints were unlawful per se.
- The district court granted summary judgment against White on all challenged practices.
- On direct appeal, White challenged the rulings on territorial and customer restraints but did not appeal the price-fixing portion of the judgment.

## Issues

1. Whether vertical territorial and customer restrictions in franchise agreements are per se unlawful under Sherman Act §§ 1 and 3.
2. Whether summary judgment was proper where the competitive impact of those vertical non-price restraints was not established on the record and White asserted possible business justifications.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court reversed the summary judgment to the extent it condemned the territorial and customer restrictions.
- The Court held those restraints could not be deemed per se unlawful on the existing record and required determination after a trial.
- The Court left undisturbed the portion of the judgment addressing price-fixing because it was not appealed.

## Legal Principles

- Summary judgment may be used in antitrust cases but should be used sparingly where motive, intent, and market effects are central and fact development is needed.
- Vertical territorial and customer restraints were not treated as automatically unlawful per se on a limited documentary record; their legality depends on evidence of their market impact.
- Assessing whether vertical non-price restrictions help or harm competition requires a developed record concerning the industry, products, history of the restraint, and market structure, with evidence tested at trial.

## Conclusion

The Court required a trial to evaluate the competitive effects of White’s vertical territorial and customer restrictions rather than condemning them as per se unlawful on summary judgment, while leaving intact the unappealed ruling against White’s price-fixing practices.


White Motor Co. v. United States, 372 U.S. 253 (1963)