During the Great Depression many “mom and pop” local stores suffered with their neighbors. At the same time, large companies found that by creating chains of retail outlets, they could leverage suppliers to give them better prices and terms than small businesses. Congress passed the Robinson-Patman Act, 15 U.S.C. § 13 (the “Act”), an amendment to the Clayton Act, to protect these small competitors from price discrimination that gave larger competitors an unfair pricing edge. The Act became an important tool to prevent large chains from pushing small stores out of the market and was actively enforced through the late 1970s.
Enforcement dropped off after a 1977 U.S. Department of Justice report that said preventing volume discounts to large chains caused consumers to pay higher prices notwithstanding harm to small retailers. The focus on consumer prices by regulators and courts since that time has resulted in far fewer suits under the Act. In effect, by the 1990s, the Act faced a sharp drop in both government and private party lawsuits as the U.S. Supreme Court focused antitrust law enforcement sharply on current impact on consumers.
While most people associate the Sherman Act with federal antitrust law, the Robinson-Patman Act also plays an important role. The Robinson-Patman Act applies to consumers, not just retailers or others in the sales chain. It states that “[i]t shall be unlawful for any person engaged in commerce, in the course of such commerce, either directly or indirectly, to discriminate in price between different purchasers of commodities of like grade and quality, . . . and where the effect of such discrimination may be substantially to lessen competition or tend to create a monopoly in any line of commerce, or to injure, destroy, or prevent competition . . . .” The Act is limited to commodities—it does not apply to any services (e.g., medical services), or other intangibles (e.g., wireless internet service, smartphone apps or “in-app purchases,” and advertising, including online advertising). Moreover, the commodities must be of “like grade and quality,” which generally will exclude bespoke products, pieces of art, and limited releases of high-end products.
But the Act is back! In Federal Trade Commission v. Southern Glazer’s Wine and Spirits, LLC, No. 8:24-cv-02684 (C.D. Cal. filed Dec. 12, 2024), the Federal Trade Commission (“FTC”) alleged the distributor’s discriminatory pricing practices for products harmed local stores and smaller retailers around the country by giving much better discounts and terms to large chains. This case was filed in the last months of the Biden administration. According to the complaint, defendant Southern Glazer’s Wine and Spirits had set up a scale for discounts based on volume purchases, but the volume of purchases for the deepest discounts could only be met by the biggest buyers. The biggest buyers also got a second significant advantage over smaller competitors in how Southern Glazer’s computed the volume purchase thresholds. In April 2025, the federal district court denied Southern Glazer’s motion to dismiss the FTC’s amended complaint.
The Trump administration reviewed both the Southern Glazer’s lawsuit and another Robinson-Patman Act case also filed late in the Biden administration, Federal Trade Commission v. PepsiCo, Inc., No. 1:25-cv-00664-JMF (S.D.N.Y. filed Jan. 17, 2025). The Trump administration FTC agreed to continue the Southern Glazer’s case but dropped the PepsiCo lawsuit.
The PepsiCo lawsuit alleged that PepsiCo gave Walmart unfair pricing advantages and promotional payments that were not offered to smaller retailers. The three FTC commissioners at the time of the review, all Republican, voted to dismiss the lawsuit in a settlement, arguing that the evidence was weak and the case politically motivated. In situations like those alleged in the cases above, a Sherman Act Section 1 claim or Sherman Act Section 2 claim is very difficult to pursue, since the net result of a Robinson-Patman Act claim typically will disrupt, slow, or stop price cuts to consumers by big box stores, while a Sherman Act claim generally requires harm to consumers—either through an agreement or a monopoly that reduces choice or availability or price. Claims based on price cuts to consumers generally require that there is a realistic chance of driving others out of the market by driving prices lower than their costs; the same is true for state antitrust laws based on Sherman Act Section 1 and/or 2. Nonetheless, many states have a sales below costs or unfair competition statute that can be used to capture the same conduct as that addressed by the Robinson-Patman Act.
Small businesses now have an example of a Trump administration lawsuit that shows suppliers must treat them fairly when compared to their larger competitors under the Robinson-Patman Act. Small businesses now also have a new district court decision to support their claims.
But how do smaller retailers discover the terms and prices from suppliers are giving them in comparison to those given to larger competitors? The conundrum here is the Supreme Court’s decision in Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007), which held allegations of parallel conduct do not state an antitrust claim without a plausible allegation of an agreement to act in concert. Bell Atlantic Corp. created the plausibility requirement, which can cause difficulty in a Sherman Act Section 1 pleading. Plausibility is easier to show when a monopoly has actually been created because monopolies do not come about by accident.
Moreover, the Robinson-Patman Act has a series of exceptions, such as meeting competing suppliers’ prices or terms, or services or other consideration provided by the big box store that justifies the discount. Anyone looking at a price discrimination issue under federal or state law needs to understand the true amount of the discount and what the justification for it is.
A supplier and a big box store may try to cover their agreements and terms as trade secrets with nondisclosure agreements. This requires the potential plaintiff to look for pricing by the big box store so extreme, or a new burst of advertising of products sold by the same supplier, that the most plausible explanation for the situation is an agreement to give the big box store a significant price or other financial advantage over its small competitors.
As for suppliers and big box stores, significant discounts not provided to smaller buyers should be well documented to show they fall within an exception to the Act, preferably simply meeting competition.
