In any event, it is doubtful that a New Zealand court will convict a truly incidental price restriction under Section 30. Such restrictions can generate millions of savings, such as for BMI and NaBanco. They are extremely pro-competitive. Does a court really want to do that? It is likely that he will try to bless such restraint. Teaching ancillary restrictions offers an opportunity to do so. Bid manipulation, price agreements and other agreements can be very difficult to detect. Collusive agreements are usually concluded in secret, with only participants informed of the scheme. However, suspicions can be aroused by unusual auction or price patterns or something a seller says or does. The purpose of Section 30 is to make price-fixing illegal in itself. This is because agreements or price agreements are not a competitive promotion objective. It distorts the market, reduces production and increases prices.
It can be very damaging to society. It is also scary price fixers. It also saves time and money. In practice, all cartel or nudity pricing would be condemned (if not) by a full analysis in accordance with Section 27, using the “members” purpose. However, a truly incidental price restriction has none of these features. Instead of reducing production and increasing prices, it increases production and lowers prices. According to Tru Tone, a truly additional price restriction “ensures maximum efficiency in the use of resources.” It thwarted the purpose of the law to interpret it in such a way that price restrictions incidentally were in themselves illegal. By law, pricing and bid manipulation systems are in themselves violations of the Sherman Act. This means that, where such a collusive regime has been put in place, it cannot be justified by arguments or evidence under the law, such as that the agreed prices were reasonable, that the agreement was necessary to avoid or eliminate price declines or ruinous competition, or that the conspirators were simply trying to ensure that each was getting a reasonable market share. In the United States, price fixing can be prosecuted as a federal fine punishable under Section 1 of the Sherman Antitrust Act.  The Arizona Supreme Court`s next price-fixing decision against Maricopa County Medical Society is more controversial.  The case concerned an action by the State of Arizona against two registered physician associations called Foundations for Medical Care.
The associations were made up of 70% of doctors in Maricopa County, Arizona. Doctors agreed on the maximum prices they would charge for their benefits for patients covered by health insurance. Several insurance companies have agreed to cover the full costs of these services. They provided consumers with a list of participating physicians.