I posted here, here, here, and here on the folly of price ceilings on gasoline prices as a way of warding off predatory pricing. John Palmer has this post about a gasoline price law in Maryland.
The Washington Post reports that this week some gasoline stations in Maryland were required to raise their gasoline prices because of a law passed in 2001 requiring that they not sell gasoline for prices below the wholesale cost. The avowed purpose of the law is to protect competitors from predation and, hence, protect consumers from the long run monopoly prices that would ensue once small independent competitors were driven out of business by the predatory firms with long purses.
Independent service station owners pressed lawmakers for the measure as a way to protect themselves from big retailers selling gas below cost to drive them out of business and limit competition.
...Maryland law prohibits companies that refine gas from operating stations. That means all Exxons and Chevrons, for example, must be operated independently. The independent operators argue that this creates more competition and lowers prices, though the Federal Trade Commission staff has said companies that operate both refineries and stations have efficiencies that can bring prices down.
..."These laws are not necessary," said Mitchell J. Katz, an FTC spokesman. "They hurt competition."
The laws against price-cutting are clearly designed to protect competitors, not competition. Can you say "Robinson-Patman"? The literature in economics is rife with examples and theoretical treatments. Classic articles about predatory pricing and how unlikey we are to observe it include those by Lester Telser and John McGee.
It's clear to me that these sorts of laws are not in place to help consumers, but are in place to help a vocal minority, a minority that either will not or cannot compete with the big guys.