FTC Drops PepsiCo Pricing Lawsuit Under Trump Administration \ Newslooks \ Washington DC \ Mary Sidiqi \ Evening Edition \ The Republican-led Federal Trade Commission dismissed a lawsuit accusing PepsiCo of unfair pricing practices favoring Walmart. The suit, filed during the Biden administration, cited the 1936 Robinson-Patman Act. Trump-era leadership called the case politically motivated and ended it amid agency shake-ups.
Quick Looks
- Case Dismissed: GOP-controlled FTC votes to withdraw PepsiCo pricing lawsuit.
- Law Invoked: Suit cited Robinson-Patman Act over alleged pricing favoritism.
- Agency Shift: Filed under Biden appointees, dropped under Trump administration.
- Leadership Changes: Lina Khan resigned; Bedoya and Slaughter were removed.
- Partisan Split: Republicans opposed case; now-chair Ferguson called it political.
- PepsiCo Response: Company says pricing remains fair and nondiscriminatory.
Deep Look
In a significant shift that underscores the changing priorities of federal regulators under the Trump administration, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) voted Thursday to dismiss a lawsuit filed earlier this year against PepsiCo, which had accused the global food and beverage company of engaging in unfair pricing practices that violated long-standing antitrust laws. The decision not only reflects ideological differences between Republican and Democratic leadership at the agency but also highlights how dramatically U.S. antitrust enforcement strategy can swing with a change in political power.
The lawsuit was initially filed in January 2025, in the final days of the Biden administration, by then-FTC Chair Lina Khan, a progressive legal scholar known for her aggressive approach to corporate regulation. Joined by fellow Democratic commissioners Rebecca Slaughter and Alvaro Bedoya, Khan’s FTC alleged that PepsiCo had given preferential pricing and promotional incentives to Walmart, the nation’s largest retailer, at the expense of smaller competitors and consumers.
The legal basis for the suit was the Robinson-Patman Act of 1936, a rarely invoked antitrust statute designed to ensure fair competition by prohibiting price discrimination that harms competition. The law, largely dormant for decades, was a key focus of Khan’s strategy to revive overlooked legal tools to address what she described as a crisis of corporate consolidation and anti-competitive behavior.
But with President Donald Trump’s return to office, the FTC’s leadership quickly changed. Khan resigned shortly after the inauguration, and both Slaughter and Bedoya were removed by Trump in March. The two former commissioners have since filed a lawsuit challenging their dismissal, calling it unconstitutional and a breach of the FTC’s independence. The legal challenge is still ongoing and could set important precedent regarding presidential authority over independent agencies.
Now under the leadership of Chairman Andrew Ferguson, one of the original dissenters to the lawsuit, the commission voted to officially withdraw the PepsiCo complaint. Ferguson, backed by fellow Republican Melissa Holyoak, sharply criticized the case as “partisan overreach” and said the prior commission had acted irresponsibly in filing it just three days before the administration changed hands.
“The Biden-Harris FTC rushed to authorize this case in a nakedly political effort to commit this administration to pursuing little more than a hunch that Pepsi had violated the law,” Ferguson said in a public statement. “Our staff have more important and impactful work to pursue.”
The FTC’s decision represents more than a single legal reversal; it is a broader repudiation of the progressive antitrust agenda that gained traction during the Biden presidency. That agenda aimed to revive dormant laws like Robinson-Patman, expand enforcement to tackle price discrimination and vertical integration, and scrutinize major corporations not just for monopoly behavior, but for the broader economic impact of their business practices—especially on small businesses and labor markets.
Critics of the lawsuit—including many within the business community—argued that using the Robinson-Patman Act against PepsiCo was legally tenuous and risked overextending the FTC’s mandate. They also questioned whether giving Walmart lower prices truly constituted illegal discrimination or simply reflected common volume-based discounting.
Supporters, however, saw the lawsuit as a long-overdue effort to restore balance in an economy increasingly dominated by large retailers that can demand—and often receive—better deals from suppliers, thereby putting small retailers at a competitive disadvantage.
For PepsiCo, the FTC’s decision was a welcome relief. The Purchase, New York-based conglomerate issued a brief but firm statement defending its pricing practices and denying any wrongdoing.
“PepsiCo has always and will continue to provide all customers with fair, competitive, and non-discriminatory pricing, discounts and promotional value,” the company said.
Although the case has been dropped, it has reignited debate around modern antitrust enforcement. Should regulators focus on clear monopolistic behavior alone, or should they consider subtler forms of market distortion like price favoritism and supplier-buyer relationships? The split between the Biden and Trump administrations on this issue couldn’t be more stark.
The FTC’s decision also underscores how fragile and politically contingent antitrust enforcement has become. With the White House and FTC leadership aligned under Trump, there is likely to be a pullback from the more experimental and assertive approaches pursued under Biden. Ferguson and Holyoak have both signaled a desire to focus on consumer fraud, deceptive advertising, and digital privacy—areas they consider more pressing than market structure or pricing equity.
Meanwhile, the lawsuit filed by Slaughter and Bedoya will continue to unfold in court. Legal scholars and political observers are watching closely, as the case could test the limits of presidential control over independent regulatory commissions like the FTC, which are traditionally considered separate from direct executive interference.
At its core, the rise and fall of the FTC vs. PepsiCo case illustrates the volatility of regulatory policy in a polarized era—where enforcement priorities, legal interpretations, and even the continuation of lawsuits can depend entirely on which party occupies the White House.
FTC Drops PepsiCo FTC Drops PepsiCo
You must Register or Login to post a comment.