FTC Revives Price Discrimination Enforcement With Southern Glazer's and Gildan Settlements

For nearly a quarter-century, a federal law designed to police price discrimination sat dormant on the shelf. The Robinson-Patman Act, passed in 1936 to prevent large retailers from using their buying power to squeeze suppliers into giving them better prices than smaller competitors could get, had not been the subject of a federal enforcement action since the year 2000. Then, in December 2024, the Federal Trade Commission filed suit against Southern Glazer's Wine and Spirits, the nation's largest wine and spirits distributor, accusing it of charging small independent retailers drastically higher prices than it charged major chains. The move caught many observers by surprise—and prompted intense scrutiny of what it might signal about antitrust enforcement under a new administration.

The Robinson-Patman Act's core rule is straightforward: you cannot sell goods of the same grade and quality to different commercial buyers at different prices unless you can justify the difference—say, because it costs less to manufacture, ship, or deliver to one buyer than another. Congress passed it, presidents have signed it, and the FTC has the mandate to enforce it. Yet for decades, the agency essentially did not. The last case, against McCormick and Company, wrapped up in 2000. After that, silence.

When the FTC brought the Southern Glazer's case, one of the two Republican commissioners who voted against it was Andrew Ferguson. In his dissent, Ferguson questioned the legal theory and called the enforcement action an unwise use of agency resources. But he also made a constitutional argument: the executive branch, he wrote, cannot simply refuse to enforce laws Congress has passed and the President has signed. The separation of powers forbids suspending laws merely because of policy disagreement. Yet he cautioned against bringing Robinson-Patman cases just for the sake of reviving the statute. It was a balanced position that left the legal world wondering what Ferguson actually believed—and what would happen to the Southern Glazer's case when Ferguson, weeks later, became FTC Chair.

On October 2, 2026, the FTC announced a settlement with Southern Glazer's following a 2-0 Commission vote. Under the agreement, filed in federal court in California, the distributor agreed to caps on how much it could charge independent retailers compared to chain retailers when both were buying the same product around the same time. The order covers nearly all of Southern Glazer's sales to five major chains across 26 states. If an independent monitor finds a violation, Southern Glazer's must pay the harmed independent retailers directly. The order lasts six years.

A week later, the FTC announced another Robinson-Patman settlement, this time with Gildan Activewear, a T-shirt manufacturer, and S&S Holdings, a wholesale distributor. The FTC had investigated whether Gildan charged discriminatory prices and whether S&S knowingly induced or received those discriminatory prices. The investigation centered on a contract term that S&S had requested—language that barred Gildan from offering S&S's competitors certain pricing and discounts that S&S itself received. After the FTC's inquiry, the parties removed the term and amended their agreement to make clear that Gildan retained the right to set its own prices and offer support to any other North American distributor. Gildan did not admit wrongdoing and maintained the contract term had not harmed competition. But the FTC framed the resolution as building on the Southern Glazer's precedent.

Daniel Guarnera, the FTC's Bureau of Competition Director, said the agency would not hesitate to enforce the law when large firms insulate themselves from competition by forcing sellers to give worse prices to competitors. The message was clear: Robinson-Patman enforcement is not a one-off revival. It is a sustained priority.

For businesses, the implications are significant. The change in presidential administration has not resulted in a pullback from these cases. Current FTC leadership continues to scrutinize how suppliers set prices across different customer segments. Companies that sell to both large chains and small independents, or that negotiate volume discounts with major buyers, should review their pricing practices and ensure they can justify any disparities. There is also a second layer of risk: private parties can sue under the Robinson-Patman Act and recover treble damages—three times the actual harm. That means a pricing strategy that draws FTC attention could also invite lawsuits from competitors or customers who believe they were charged more than they should have been.