For the first time in almost 25 years, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) filed an enforcement action under the price discrimination provisions of the Robinson-Patman Act, 15 U.S.C. § 13 (RPA). According to the Complaint, the Defendant in the case, Southern Glazer’s Wine and Spirits LLC (Southern), is the largest national distributor of wine and spirits who has,“[f]or years,” violated the RPA by charging higher prices to “mom and pop” businesses than it charges to “large national and regional chains.”¹ The FTC alleges that Southern violated the RPA by providing favored customers high-volume quantity discounts, cumulative quantity discounts, and scan rebates.² And based on this conduct, the FTC seeks to obtain a monetary judgment against Southern and to permanently enjoin its alleged illegal discriminatory practices.

Enacted in 1936, the RPA makes it illegal for sellers to engage in price discrimination by charging competing buyers’ different prices for products of “like, grade and quality.” For decades, the RPA has been criticized. Detractors argue the RPA is flawed for many reasons, including that it harms small businesses and consumers by deterring and penalizing procompetitive conduct, including lower prices. While the RPA has infrequently been the subject of private lawsuits, including class actions, the FTC and Department of Justice effectively abandoned enforcing the RPA in the late 1970s with the FTC bringing its last enforcement action in 2000.

This past Spring, FTC Commissioner Alvaro Bedoya expressed interest in bringing cases under the RPA during the American Bar Association’s annual Spring Meeting. Soon thereafter, certain lawmakers urged the FTC to revive enforcement of the RPA. And with this enforcement action, the FTC appears to have answered the call.

Publicly available information suggests that the FTC has at least one other open investigation into RPA violations.

The vote to bring this enforcement action split along party lines. It therefore remains to be seen whether the incoming Trump Administration will adopt this more aggressive posture to enforcement of the RPA.

Taft attorneys will monitor this case and are available to help you and your company evaluate the RPA and its impact, if any, on your business.

---

¹ See FTC v. Southern Glazer’s Wine and Spirits LLC, No. 8:24-cv-02684 (C.D. Cal. 2024), Complaint, ¶ 1.
² The FTC also alleges Southern violated Section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission Act, 15 U.S.C. § 45. Id., ¶¶ 87-88.