consuming market”) (citations omitted). Plaintiffs do not identify such harm here. Nor do allegations regarding harm to consumers, either in the form of reduced choice or increased prices, state a Section 1 claim. The Supreme Court has noted that both are “fully consistent with a free, competitive market,” III. Tool, 547 U.S. at 44-45, 126 S.Ct. 1281, and are therefore insufficient to establish an injury to competition. Thus even vertical agreements that prohibit retail price reductions and result in higher consumer prices, commonly referred to as resale price maintenance, are not unlawful absent a further showing of anticompetitive conduct. See Leegin, 551 U.S. at 897, 127 S.Ct. 2705. We have drawn the same conclusion. See Forsyth v. Humana, Inc., 114 F.3d 1467, 1477-78 (9th Cir.1997) (<HOLDING>). Here, the complaint’s allegations of reduced
holding that an agreement in violation of antitrust laws may be enforceable where the parties underlying conduct is legal holding that a kickback scheme that raised prices in violation of erisa did not violate the antitrust laws because it did not restrain competition holding that an activity which is exempt from the antitrust laws cannot form the basis of an antitrust investigation holding that the fcc was not given the power to decide antitrust issues and that its actions do not prevent enforcement of the antitrust laws in federal courts holding the statutory scheme of two federal laws was not void for vagueness and did not violate equal protection or due process even though the defendants conduct violated both laws