In 2025, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) filed a lawsuit against PepsiCo alleging violations of the Robinson-Patman Act (RPA) related to price discrimination. The FTC claimed that PepsiCo provided more favorable pricing and promotional allowances to a large retailer—widely reported to be Walmart—while charging higher prices to competing retailers, including smaller grocery stores and convenience shops.
PepsiCo FTC Lawsuit
The lawsuit, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, asserted that PepsiCo’s pricing strategy unfairly disadvantaged smaller competitors, harming competition and violating Sections 2(d) and 2(e) of the RPA, which prohibit certain discriminatory promotional allowances.
FTC Chair Lina Khan emphasized the importance of fair competition and transparency in pricing, while Republican commissioners criticized the lawsuit as politically motivated and lacking solid evidence.
Legal Proceedings and Case Dismissal
Despite the FTC’s initial pursuit of the case, a majority Republican-led commission voted 3-0 in May 2025 to dismiss the lawsuit without prejudice, citing insufficient evidence and concerns about the legal basis for the claims. FTC Chairman Andrew Ferguson described the lawsuit as a misuse of agency resources.
The dismissal allows PepsiCo to continue its pricing practices but leaves open the possibility of future legal actions or regulatory scrutiny under different circumstances.
Industry Impact and Regulatory Context
The case marked one of the few attempts by the FTC in recent years to enforce the centuries-old Robinson-Patman Act, a law designed to protect small businesses from unfair price discrimination by large corporate rivals. The mixed signals from the FTC reflect ongoing debate about the relevance and application of the Act in today’s complex marketplace.
Private litigation related to PepsiCo’s pricing remains active, illustrating continued legal risks for large manufacturers regarding promotional practices.
Conclusion
The FTC’s lawsuit against PepsiCo and its subsequent dismissal highlight the challenges of antitrust enforcement in a rapidly evolving retail landscape. While the case was dropped, the scrutiny on pricing fairness and competitive practices continues, signaling that businesses must carefully navigate legal standards to avoid future disputes.
Retailers, competitors, and consumers should stay informed about regulatory developments as enforcement strategies adapt to market realities.
