Federal antitrust enforcement of the Robinson-Patman Act has shifted from a dormant statute into active litigation and settlements under FTC Chair Andrew Ferguson, resulting in a resolution involving a wine and spirits distributor. The Federal Trade Commission secured a binding settlement on October 2, 2026, with Southern Glazer’s Wine and Spirits LLC, ending a generational pause in federal price discrimination enforcement that had not seen a resolved action since McCormick and Company in 2000.
Southern Glazers Settlement Ends Decades of Dormancy
The Federal Trade Commission voted 2-0 to approve a proposed stipulated order in the Central District of California settling its case against Southern Glazer’s Wine and Spirits, LLC. The underlying complaint, filed in December 2024, accused the nation’s largest wine and spirits distributor of charging independent retailers significantly higher prices for identical bottles than it charged competing large chains, even when those stores operated blocks apart. The distribution giant utilized discounts and rebates inaccessible to small competitors without state-specific cost justifications.
Under the terms of the six-year order, Southern Glazer’s agreed to maximum thresholds for price disparities in paired transactions involving five chain retailers across 26 states. An independent monitor will oversee compliance, and the company must issue direct payments to harmed independent retailers if overcharges exceed $5,000 over a 12-month period. The settlement preserves affirmative defenses under the statute, including functional availability, meeting competition, and changing market conditions.
Gildan Activewear and SS Holdings Resolve Wholesale T-Shirt Investigation
Hot on the heels of the Southern Glazer’s resolution, the FTC announced a second enforcement milestone involving T-shirt manufacturer Gildan Activewear SRL and wholesale distributor S&S Holdings LLC. The agency investigated whether Gildan violated Section 2(a) of the Robinson-Patman Act and whether S&S violated Section 2(f) by knowingly inducing or receiving discriminatory prices through a restrictive contract term.
Andrew Ferguson Shifts From Dissent to Enforcement
The trajectory of modern Robinson-Patman Act enforcement is tied closely to the evolution of FTC Chair Andrew Ferguson. When the Commission sued Southern Glazer’s in December 2024, Ferguson was a commissioner who dissented from the 3-2 vote. He characterized the action as an imprudent use of resources. However, in his dissent, Ferguson maintained that the executive branch should not categorically refuse to enforce statutes passed by Congress and signed by the president.
After taking the reins as FTC Chair, Ferguson avoided collecting dust on the statutory shelf while cautioning against bringing suits merely for the sake of revival. The swift resolution of the Southern Glazer’s litigation and the Gildan-S&S agreement demonstrate that current leadership continues to scrutinize supplier pricing practices across consumer goods sectors without experiencing the expected drop-off in cases following the presidential transition.
Frequently Asked Questions About Robinson-Patman Act Enforcement
What is the Robinson-Patman Act and what does it prohibit?
The Robinson-Patman Act is a federal statute that broadly prohibits sellers from engaging in business-to-business price discrimination by selling goods of the same grade and quality to different commercial buyers at disparate prices, unless justified by verifiable differences in manufacturing, sales, or delivery costs.
How long did the Robinson-Patman Act remain dormant before recent FTC actions?
Before the federal government brought its action against Southern Glazer’s Wine and Spirits in late 2024, the last federal enforcement action under the statute was resolved in 2000 against McCormick and Company, leaving the law largely dormant for nearly 25 years.
What triggers a violation under the Southern Glazer’s settlement?
Southern Glazer’s violates the six-year stipulated order if overcharges in paired transactions—where a chain and a nearby independent retailer buy the same product contemporaneously—aggregate to more than $5,000 over a 12-month period without a valid cost justification or statutory defense.
Can private companies still enforce the Robinson-Patman Act independently?
Yes. In addition to active federal scrutiny by the FTC under Chair Andrew Ferguson, private commercial parties retain the legal ability to enforce the Robinson-Patman Act in court and seek treble damages for unlawful price discrimination.