The Supreme Court, in its 2007 decision Leegin Creative Products, Inc. v. PSKA, Inc., reversed an almost 100 year old per se prohibition against resale price maintenance (or RPM) agreements and held that such agreements must be evaluated under a rule of reason. The Supreme Court case involved an action brought by a Texas retailer against fashion accessories manufacturer Leegin. A similar case was brought against the same defendant in Kansas State Court by a class of Kansas consumers. The class of plaintiffs claimed that Leegin’s alleged RPM policies were in violation of Kansas antitrust law and that, as result of this violation, the class had suffered antitrust injury. EI Principal William C. Myslinksi submitted extensive expert analysis on behalf of defendant Leegin. Dr. Myslinski showed in his reports that, in order to determine whether members of the class were in fact “injured or damaged” by the alleged unlawful agreements, it is necessary to construct a model of what prices consumers would have paid and what level of retail services they would have received in the absence of the alleged unlawful agreements. In its ruling granting Defendant’s motion for summary judgment, the Kansas State Court stated that the plaintiffs’ economic experts failed to establish the existence of class-wide evidence of antitrust injury. In particular, as suggested by Dr. Myslinski, plaintiffs’ experts did not show that Leegin’s RPM policy resulted in higher prices to the consumer for their products and did no studies of the market affected by the alleged antitrust conduct. Dr. Myslinski was assisted by Laura A. Malowane and Allison M. Holt. Professor Kenneth Elzinga also provided economic analysis on behalf of Leegin. Leegin was represented by Foulston Siefkin.