Page:United States Reports 546.pdf/388

 546US1

Unit: $U15

[08-22-08 15:43:12] PAGES PGT: OPIN

Cite as: 546 U. S. 164 (2006)

177

Opinion of the Court

vored purchaser, i. e., one who “receive[d] the beneﬁt of such discrimination.” 15 U. S. C. § 13(a). It is undisputed that Reeder has satisﬁed the ﬁrst and second requirements. Volvo and the United States, as amicus curiae, maintain that Reeder cannot satisfy the third and fourth requirements, be­ cause Reeder has not identiﬁed any differentially priced transaction in which it was both a “purchaser” under the Act and “in actual competition” with a favored purchaser for the same customer. A hallmark of the requisite competitive injury, our deci­ sions indicate, is the diversion of sales or proﬁts from a disfa­ vored purchaser to a favored purchaser. FTC v. Sun Oil Co., 371 U. S. 505, 518–519 (1963) (evidence showed patronage shifted from disfavored dealers to favored dealers); Falls City Industries, Inc. v. Vanco Beverage, Inc., 460 U. S. 428, 437–438, and n. 8 (1983) (complaint “supported by direct evi­ dence of diverted sales”). We have also recognized that a permissible inference of competitive injury may arise from evidence that a favored competitor received a signiﬁcant price reduction over a substantial period of time. See FTC v. Morton Salt Co., 334 U. S. 37, 49–51 (1948); Falls City Industries, 460 U. S., at 435. Absent actual competition with a favored Volvo dealer, however, Reeder cannot estab­ lish the competitive injury required under the Act. III The evidence Reeder offered at trial falls into three cate­ gories: (1) comparisons of concessions Reeder received for four successful bids against non-Volvo dealers, with larger concessions other successful Volvo dealers received for dif­ ferent sales on which Reeder did not bid (purchase­ to-purchase comparisons); (2) comparisons of concessions offered to Reeder in connection with several unsuccessful bids against non-Volvo dealers, with greater concessions accorded other Volvo dealers who competed successfully for different sales on which Reeder did not bid (offer-to­