In Camarda v. Snapple Distributors Inc., 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals has ruled that local drivers who distribute Snapple Beverage Corp. drinks failed to establish injury under the Robinson-Patman Act in price discrimination suits accusing Snapple of letting other distributors horn in on their territory and undersell them. According to the lawsuit, a local distributor paid “significant consideration” to get a local delivery route and had to abide by Snapple’s various restrictions and requirements, however from 1999 Snapple allowed larger “trans-shippers” to sell the drinks in his exclusive route, without paying the same consideration and without having to abide by the same restrictions and requirements. In affirming the lower court’s dismissal of the Robinson-Patman Act allegations, the Second Circuit held that “the existence of a ‘trans-shipping problem’ … does not establish a causal connection between plaintiffs’ claimed injuries and the defendants’ alleged price discrimination,” but factors unrelated to the defendants’ pricing of the Snapple products – including “the willingness of trans-shippers to sell at a lower price for less profit” – could have led to plaintiffs’ losing business to trans-shippers.