Clarkwestern Dietrich Bldg. Sys. L.L.C. v. Certified Steel Stud Assn., Inc.
2017 Ohio 1091
Ohio Ct. App.2017Background
- Clarkwestern Dietrich Building Systems (Clark Dietrich) developed a lower-cost NSSF product using a cold-reduction process and a proprietary coating marketed as "G40EQ."
- The Steel Stud Manufacturing Association (SSMA), a voluntary trade association representing most industry volume, created an IBC compliance/certification program in 2010.
- SSMA adopted coating and elongation requirements in its program that Clark Dietrich said would exclude G40EQ from SSMA approval; Clark Dietrich resigned from SSMA in 2011 and continued selling G40EQ.
- Clark Dietrich sued SSMA and member manufacturers under the Ohio Valentine Act (antitrust), alleging SSMA adopted "sham standards" to exclude its product and harm competition.
- The trial court granted summary judgment for defendants, finding no antitrust injury because SSMA certification and membership were voluntary and Clark Dietrich remained free to sell and market its product; the Twelfth District affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether SSMA's adoption of coating/elongation standards violated the Ohio Valentine Act under the rule of reason | SSMA adopted "sham standards" to exclude G40EQ, injuring competition by preventing industry adoption of lower-cost technology | SSMA's certification is voluntary; no enforcement prevented Clark Dietrich from selling or customers from buying; any harm is to a competitor, not to market competition | Summary judgment for defendants: no Valentine Act violation — no market-wide antitrust injury and plaintiff remained free to sell |
| Whether denial/loss of SSMA certification equals exclusion "in a real sense" from the market | Loss of SSMA approval foreclosed effective competition and foreclosed market adoption of technology | Certification is not required for IBC compliance; other ways existed to demonstrate compliance and to market the product | Court: denial of voluntary certification, without enforcement mechanism, does not establish restraint of trade |
Key Cases Cited
- Consolidated Metal Products, Inc. v. American Petroleum Institute, 846 F.2d 284 (5th Cir. 1988) (trade association unfavorable evaluation or withholding of approval does not violate antitrust absent market exclusion or enforcement)
- Schachar v. American Acad. of Ophthalmology, Inc., 870 F.2d 397 (7th Cir. 1989) (public statements labeling procedures "experimental" do not violate Sherman Act absent enforcement that restrains trade)
- Santana Prods., Inc. v. Bobrick Washroom Equip., Inc., 401 F.3d 123 (3d Cir. 2005) (competition over specifications and negative statements to architects is not an antitrust violation absent an enforcement device that prevents selling or buying)
- Allied Tube & Conduit Corp. v. Indian Head, Inc., 486 U.S. 492 (1988) (private standard-setting can give rise to antitrust liability in some circumstances; Noerr immunity issues may be implicated)