FTC Settles First Enforcement Action Under Robinson-Patman Act in More Than 25 Years

On October 2, 2026, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) announced that it had reached a settlement with Southern Glazer’s Wine and Spirits, LLC (“Southern”), the nation’s largest wine and spirits distributor.

The FTC brought the case against Southern under the Robinson-Patman Act of 1936, a federal statute that seeks to protect smaller competitors from the purchasing power of larger players in the market.

The settlement places limits on Southern’s ability to charge small, independent retailers higher prices for wine and spirits than it charges competing large retail chains. In its announcement, the FTC noted that the settlement “marks a significant milestone for the FTC in its enforcement of the Robinson-Patman Act,” suggesting renewed FTC interest in enforcing the statute. This settlement is the first relief that the FTC has secured under the Robinson-Patman Act since 2000.

The FTC initiated the action against Southern in 2024, while Lina Khan was still FTC Chair. At that time, two Commissioners (Andrew Ferguson and Melissa Holyoak) voted against bringing the action, with Commissioner Ferguson noting in his lengthy dissent, “I do not believe the Commission is likely to prevail even under the traditional, protectionist understanding of the Robinson-Patman Act. Second, even if it were likely to prevail, this case is a poor use of the agency’s resources.” The only two current Commissioners (now Chair Ferguson and Mark Meador) voted to approve the settlement. 

In doing so, Chair Ferguson acknowledged his prior dissent, stating that “discovery bore out many of the concerns I raised in my dissent.” Nevertheless, instead of effecting a voluntary dismissal, the Chair found that the “evidentiary weakness was serious, but it did not wholly dispose of the case.”

As a result, Chair Ferguson supported resolving the matter through a settlement agreement and seemingly endorsed potential further use of the Robinson-Patman Act, which he noted “remains good law.”

* * *

For additional information about the issues discussed in this Antitrust Byte, or if you have any other antitrust concerns, please contact the attorneys listed on this page or the Epstein Becker Green attorney who regularly handles your legal matters.