so the question becomes what it means to "meet and agree".
If these companies never communicated, and all came to the same conclusion of a price floor (that happens to all be the same), then how can it be price fixing?
To me, price fixing require that the parties agree (explicitly, or implicitly with punishment) to _not_ lower the price regardless of the lack of sales. It is not enough to have the same price (however that price comes about is irrelevant).
If they can prove they never met otherwise agreed on a price, but they just happened to take the same decision, then yes, it's not price fixing.
But if they are using the same third party that is telling explicitly telling them "your price should be this", then it's quite clear that they have agreed on the same price. Doing so indirectly doesn't make it any better.
so the question becomes what it means to "meet and agree".
If these companies never communicated, and all came to the same conclusion of a price floor (that happens to all be the same), then how can it be price fixing?
To me, price fixing require that the parties agree (explicitly, or implicitly with punishment) to _not_ lower the price regardless of the lack of sales. It is not enough to have the same price (however that price comes about is irrelevant).