Does Competition Constitute an Injury - Defining Injury in the Missouri Motor Fuel Marketing Act

The purpose of the Missouri Motor Fuel Marketing Act (MFMA) 2 is to prevent predatory pricing in the motor fuel retail industry that would ultimately harm consumers through monopolistic takeovers.3 The Act prohibits certain below-cost sales of motor fuel by a retailer intended to or having the effect of unfairly diverting trade from a competitor, inducing the purchase of other merchandise, or otherwise injuring competitors.4 In State ex rel. Nixon v. QuikTrip Corp., the Missouri Supreme Court interpreted certain language in the MFMA for the first time. The court defined the statutory terms competitor and injure, and established what the State must show to prove a below-cost sale either unfairly diverted trade or otherwise injur[ed] a competitor. 5 The court held that the MFMA does not prohibit all below-cost sales of motor fuel, the State must show injury to a competitor, and the State must show the below-cost sale forced the competitor to lower its motor fuel prices to the point of operating its business at an overall loss to prove a violation. These holdings are in accord with the policy behind the Act, the statutory language, prior case law, and Areeda and Hovenkamp\u27s interpretation of federal antitrust law.6 The dissent\u27s argument that the majority ignores the plain meaning of the word injure, \u27 7 on the other hand, overlooks these factors and contradicts both legislative intent and prior case law