In a significant move to revive antitrust enforcement, the U.S. Federal Trade Commission (FTC) filed a lawsuit on Thursday against Southern Glazer’s Wine & Spirits, accusing the company of giving exclusive discounts to large customers at the expense of smaller businesses. This lawsuit marks the first time in over two decades that the FTC has invoked the Robinson-Patman Act, a law designed to protect independent retailers from unfair pricing practices that benefit larger competitors.
Southern Glazer’s, the largest alcohol distributor in the United States, which supplies major brands such as Bacardi, Smirnoff, and Jim Beam, is accused of engaging in pricing practices that unfairly favor big retail chains like Costco, Kroger, and Total Wine & More, while denying similar discounts to smaller, independent liquor stores. The FTC claims that these actions harm competition and undermine the ability of small businesses to thrive in the marketplace.
FTC Chair Lina Khan emphasized the harm caused by such practices, stating, “When local businesses are squeezed by unfair pricing practices that favor large chains, consumers face higher prices, fewer choices, and the loss of community businesses. This is a direct threat to both local economies and consumer choice.”
The lawsuit is a key effort by outgoing FTC Chair Lina Khan, who has prioritized using antitrust laws to protect small businesses and workers, not just consumers. The Robinson-Patman Act, passed in 1936 during the Great Depression, aims to prevent large corporations from using their size to demand discriminatory pricing terms that disadvantage smaller competitors. The law has seen limited enforcement in recent decades, but the FTC’s move signals a renewed focus on using it to curb anti-competitive behavior.
Southern Glazer’s, however, denies any wrongdoing. The company stated that its discounting practices comply with existing legal requirements, emphasizing the complex regulatory environment in which alcohol distributors operate. “Southern Glazer’s complies with all applicable laws and regulations, and we intend to vigorously defend ourselves against this unfounded claim,” the company said in a statement.
The decision to file the lawsuit came after a contentious vote within the FTC, with a 3-2 split. Commissioners Andrew Ferguson and Melissa Holyoak, both Republicans, dissented, arguing that the case lacked sufficient evidence to show any meaningful harm to competition. Holyoak called the pricing practices “innocuous” and questioned the necessity of the lawsuit, while Ferguson expressed concern that the FTC might not succeed in its case.
Despite the dissent, advocates for stronger antitrust enforcement see the move as a crucial step in combating corporate consolidation and its detrimental effects on local businesses. According to the Institute for Local Self-Reliance, a leading anti-monopoly think tank, the failure to enforce the Robinson-Patman Act has contributed to the rise of retail giants like Walmart, which have driven small, independent retailers out of business and created food deserts in many communities.
The lawsuit signals a broader shift in U.S. antitrust policy under Khan’s leadership, aiming to challenge the dominance of large corporations and restore fairness in the marketplace. Critics of the Robinson-Patman Act’s enforcement argue that such actions could lead to higher prices for consumers by discouraging wholesale discounts. However, Khan and her supporters contend that the law should be used to protect small businesses from anti-competitive practices that harm local economies and reduce consumer choice in the long run.
In addition to the Southern Glazer’s case, the FTC is also investigating pricing practices at major companies like Coca-Cola and PepsiCo, though no formal charges have been filed against them at this time.
Read more: