News, Developments and Practical Advice from Antitrust Leaders

Antitrust Advocate

Home | Antitrust Advocate

On January 20, 2026, Republican Senators Chuck Grassley and Mike Rounds wrote the Federal Trade Commission and the Department of Justice “encourag[ing]” them “to look into potential discriminatory pricing and product supply practices that harm small and medium-sized businesses, particularly in the grocery industry” and “urg[ing]” the DOJ and FTC “to utilize all federal laws that empower you to bring enforcement actions against any discriminatory conduct that you may discover in violation of antitrust law, including the Robinson Patman Act.”

core/paragraph

The letter, joined by four Senate colleagues, was remarkable for the breadth of stakeholders it cited as vulnerable to discriminatory prices, from small and mid-size businesses to “ordinary American” consumers to “farmers and ranchers.” It also represents a continuation of a bipartisan antitrust priority – convenient access to groceries, pharmacies and other basic consumer staples in urban and rural areas. Former Commissioner Alvaro Bedoya, appointed by President Biden, frequently spoke about this issue during his tenure. Senator Grassley and his colleagues warned in their letter that unlawful price discrimination threatens both local economies and the stability of supply chains.

Meanwhile, in December 2025, Senator Cory Booker and Representative Maxine Waters introduced companion versions of the Fair Competition for Small Business Act of 2025. The bills propose a wording change to the antitrust laws that would expand the power of state attorneys general to seek monetary damages for price discrimination under the Robinson-Patman Act.

The Robinson-Patman Act continues to have support at the FTC as well, even though the Commission has brought fewer cases this year. Although FTC Chairman Andrew Ferguson voted against filing a complaint, the FTC continues to pursue its current Robinson-Patman case against Southern Glazer’s Wine and Spirits, LLC for allegedly offering discriminatory discounts and rebates to retailers. And in his dissent to that case, Chairman Ferguson wrote that the FTC was duty-bound to enforce the Robinson-Patman Act, regardless of whether it was good or bad policy. FTC Commissioner Mark Meador likewise penned an article for the Federalist Society in 2024 in which he stated, “It is entirely appropriate to question whether the [Robinson-Patman Act] is good policy, but it remains the binding policy of the federal government. The only way to change that is for Congress to pass new legislation. Until that happens, it remains the duty of federal law enforcers to enforce the law as written.”

This demonstrates a potential shift in policy. Prior to the Southern Glazer’s case, filed in 2024, the FTC had issued only one Robinson-Patman Act complaint since 1992. As recently as 2007, the Antitrust Modernization Committee, created by an act of Congress, recommended the Robinson-Patman Act be repealed, concluding it “is fundamentally inconsistent with the antitrust laws and harms consumer welfare” and is irreconcilable, it found, with the purpose of the antitrust laws.

The upshot is that the Robinson-Patman Act is probably here to stay, at least for now. After decades of the Act’s dormancy, companies should be cautious about complacency. Besides the ever-present possibility of costly private litigation under the Act, companies that ignore price discrimination laws do so at their own peril and may risk finding themselves the subject of a federal investigation. Stay tuned.&nbsp;

Is the Robinson-Patman Act Here to Stay?