Weight-Rite Golf Corp. v. United States Golf Association

Weight-Rite Golf Corporation (Weight-Rite) (plaintiff) manufactured and distributed golf shoes that helped golfers better distribute their weight when striking the ball. The United States Golf association (USGA) (defendant) was an association of golf courses and clubs (members). In March 1990, the USGA determined that Weight-Rite’s shoes violated the Rules of Golf, which the USGA published. That decision led numerous retailers to stop selling Weight-Rite’s shoes and to return their existing inventories. Weight-Rite sued the USGA, alleging that it violated the Sherman Antitrust Act by, among other things, conspiring with its members and by unreasonably restraining trade. With respect to the alleged conspiracy, Weight-Rite argued that the USGA required members to enforce the Rules of Golf by disqualifying golfers who used Weight-Rite shoes. However, Weight-Rite did not supply direct evidence to support this theory. Instead, Weight-Rite argued that it was reasonable to infer that the USGA required its members to ban Weight-Rite shoes because (1) scorecards used by most members stated that “USGA rules govern all play” and (2) the USGA’s bylaws stated that members “must accept and enforce all rules” of the USGA. With respect to the alleged unreasonable restraint on trade, Weight-Rite argued that all major golf tournaments followed the USGA’s interpretation of the Rules of Golf and that the USGA abused the resultant power to restrain competition in the industry. However, Weight-Rite’s only evidence on this score was the unsupported affidavit of its expert witness. Weight-Rite further argued that because USGA members allegedly had to disqualify golfers who used Weight-Rite shoes, it required no great imagination to conclude that member equipment stores likely would not sell Weight-Rite shoes. Again, however, Weight-Rite relied exclusively on the largely unsupported affidavit of its expert. The USGA moved for summary judgment, arguing, among other things, that there was no evidence that it required members to enforce the USGA’s interpretation of the Rules of Golf at the members’ own competitions. In particular, the USGA showed that its bylaws used the capitalized term Rules of Golf when the bylaws meant to refer to golf’s official rules and that the bylaw provision on which Weight-Rite relied did not use the capitalized term. The USGA further noted the lack of evidentiary support for Weight-Rite’s unreasonable-restraint claim.