Wal-Mart Guilty of Predatory Price Cutting : Court: Retailer ordered to stop selling some items below cost. Three Conway, Ark., drugstores to get $300,000 in damages.


An Arkansas judge Tuesday found Wal-Mart Stores guilty of using predatory pricing to force competitors out of business, possibly paving the way for more lawsuits against price-cutting discounters.

In his ruling, Chancery Court Judge David Reynolds ordered Wal-Mart to stop selling drugs and health and beauty products below cost at its store in Conway, Ark., and to pay nearly $300,000 in damages to three drugstores in that community.

The three stores had filed suit, accusing Wal-Mart of scheming to drive them out of business by selling below cost. Reynolds said Wal-Mart violated the law, which bars selling items at a loss with the intent of harming competitors. Wal-Mart shares fell 75 cents to close at $25.75 on the New York Stock Exchange.

"We will immediately appeal and clearly expect the Arkansas Supreme Court to overturn this anti-consumer decision," said Robert K. Rhoads, Wal-Mart's general counsel. "If this decision is allowed to stand, the result will be higher prices--not just for Wal-Mart customers, but customers of every retail store, large and small, in Arkansas."

The case, similar to lawsuits pending against Wal-Mart in Colorado and Oklahoma, could encourage other small retailers to file predatory-pricing claims against discount giants. In all, 25 states--including California--have similar unfair-practices statutes.

"Below-cost pricing would be considered part of unfair pricing in any state that has unfair-practices laws," said Henry Cheeseman, a business law professor at USC. "You're going to see more lawsuits against discounters as a result of this ruling, but there is no way to predict the outcome of these cases."

Wal-Mart, the nation's largest retailer, has been blamed for the demise of some long-established businesses in small cities around the country, and many of those merchants will try to use the Arkansas case as a precedent, said George Lucas, a Memphis State University business professor who has served as a witness in predatory-pricing cases.

"I would be shocked if this ruling did not become a catalyst for more cases of this type," Lucas said. Other industry observers, however, do not expect an immediate spate of lawsuits against low-price leaders. Larry Gresham, director of the Center for Retailing Studies at Texas A&M; University, said many potential litigants will wait for the outcome of Wal-Mart's appeal.

"If Wal-Mart loses, writes a check for court-ordered damages and complies without contesting it further, you might see widespread effort to bring litigation," Gresham said.

Wal-Mart will prevail because selling below cost has been a common practice, said Richard Nelson, an industry analyst at Duff & Phelps in Chicago.

"This practice has a long history," Nelson said. "To win this kind of lawsuit, you have to prove that a retailer is trying to harm a competitor, and that's difficult."

However, the Arkansas judge said there was evidence of harmful intent in the Conway case. He cited the following:

* The number, frequency and extent of below-cost sales

* Wal-Mart's stated pricing policy to "meet or beat the competition without regard to cost"

* Wal-Mart's in-store price comparison of goods sold by competitors, including the plaintiffs in the suit

* A variation in prices between the Conway area and other markets

Wal-Mart Chief Executive David Glass testified during the August trial that the company sold some items below cost but that it didn't do it to drive others out of business.

Copyright © 2019, Los Angeles Times
EDITION: California | U.S. & World