The antitrust agencies’ revival of the Robinson-Patman Act risks undercutting legitimate business practices that benefit consumers. However, there is a role the Act can play in protecting small businesses, writes Darren Tucker.
Recent commentary has rightly drawn attention to the Robinson-Patman Act (RPA) and the potential virtues of reviving enforcement after decades of dormancy. Congress passed the RPA in 1936 to address concerns that large chain stores were extracting secret or exclusive concessions from suppliers that smaller independent businesses could not match. The statute prohibits a supplier from selling a commodity or product of like grade and quality to buyers at different prices where the effect “may be substantially to lessen competition” or injure competition with any person who either grants or knowingly receives the benefit of such price discrimination. Critically, the RPA retained—and in some ways strengthened—defenses for price discrimination justified by actual cost savings from differing methods or quantities of sale, good-faith meeting of competition, and changing conditions. So, for example, a supplier could discount a sale to a retailer if it bought the product in bulk. The law targeted abusive favoritism, not price differences that arise when buyers purchase at different scales.
The law fell out of favor as much of the antitrust community came to view its application to be harmful to consumer welfare, and federal enforcers did not bring an RPA case for over twenty years. But the antitrust enforcement agencies of the Biden administration revived the statute as it sought to prioritize the protection of small businesses.
Antitrust experts have explored whether the statute can protect smaller businesses from the advantages secured by powerful buyers, debated raising-rivals’-costs frameworks, and questioned whether modern antitrust law’s focus on consumer welfare has overlooked secondary-line injury to independent retailers. These discussions reflect a broader conversation about whether the 1936 law still has a useful role in today’s economy.
That role exists, but only if we apply the statute as written, not as an all-purpose tool to equalize wholesale prices or penalize efficient volume-based pricing. The RPA is designed to stop genuine price discrimination: situations in which a supplier offers favorable terms to some buyers while refusing to make those same (or proportionally equal) terms available to competing buyers. It was never meant to ban legitimate quantity discounts that any purchaser can obtain simply by buying in larger volumes.
Today’s expansive interpretations risk departing from that original understanding. The cases which the Biden antitrust agencies brought, one of which the Trump administration continues to pursue, challenges business practices under the RPA, not for refusing to offer terms to smaller buyers, but for offering standard volume discounts, cumulative rebates, or promotional allowances that are available to any retailer willing and able to meet the volume threshold. When a distributor openly tiers its pricing by purchase quantity—making the deepest discounts accessible to any customer who buys enough—the core element of prohibited “discrimination” (unavailability to competitors on equal terms) is absent. Treating such practices as per se violations transforms the RPA from a shield against favoritism into a de facto price-equalization mandate. That shift is inconsistent with the statute’s text and history, and it threatens the very efficiencies Congress sought to preserve through its cost-justification defense.
The ongoing FTC v. Southern Glazer’s Wine & Spirits case, pending in the United States District Court for the Central District of California, illustrates the tension. The Federal Trade Commission alleges that the nation’s largest wine and spirits distributor provided steeper discounts, rebates, and allowances to large national and regional chains than to independent retailers, harming secondary-line competition. Southern Glazer’s maintains that its pricing reflects legitimate volume-based differences and that all discount levels are available to eligible retailers—large or small—who purchase qualifying quantities. The dispute centers on whether the discounts were truly “functionally available” to independents or whether practical barriers and notification issues rendered them discriminatory in effect.
Whether brought by the federal antitrust agencies, state enforcers, or private plaintiffs, RPA enforcement today should focus on demonstrable instances of discrimination: cases in which a supplier refuses to extend the same terms to competing buyers on proportionally equal terms, offers selective deals unavailable to others, or grants concessions without cost justification or a meeting-competition defense. Agencies and courts can and should demand rigorous evidence on these points, as well as a showing of harm to competition. They should also take seriously the statute’s built-in defenses rather than treating them as afterthoughts.
Such an approach would allow the RPA to play a targeted role in modern markets. In industries with significant distribution bottlenecks or where powerful buyers can coerce suppliers into exclusive favoritism, preventing genuine refusals to deal on equal terms can preserve competitive opportunities for smaller players without distorting incentives. It can deter the kind of hidden favoritism that Congress originally worried about. At the same time, respecting volume discounts that are openly available respects economic reality: larger purchases often involve lower per-unit costs of production, selling, delivery, warehousing, or promotion. Forcing suppliers to offer the same net price regardless of volume would likely result in higher average prices overall—either by raising prices to large buyers (who serve millions of consumers) or by making sales to smaller buyers unprofitable.
Critics of revival of the RPA are correct that aggressive RPA enforcement historically chilled discounting and raised compliance costs that ultimately burden consumers. Articles declaring the statute “unrevivable” capture a real risk: if courts and agencies stretch the law to attack any price difference that favors larger buyers, the result will be less competition on the merits, not more. But a narrow, textually faithful application need not produce that outcome. It can coexist with the consumer-welfare focus that guides the enforcement of our other antitrust statutes, including the Sherman and Clayton Acts. Where price differences reflect real efficiencies and are available to all who meet objective volume criteria, they generally benefit consumers through lower retail prices, greater selection, and more efficient distribution. Only when differences stem from arbitrary or coercive favoritism that cannot be justified do they threaten the competitive process itself.
Enforcers can operationalize this distinction by requiring plaintiffs to show more than aggregated price differences or the mere existence of volume tiers. Evidence should address whether terms were genuinely unavailable, whether cost savings justified the differentials, and whether any competitive injury was probable rather than speculative. A raising-rivals’-costs lens, as some ProMarket contributors have suggested, could help guide the analysis if applied rigorously and with full respect for the statutory defenses, not as a backdoor to condemn efficient pricing.
The RPA is an imperfect statute, born of Depression-era politics and small-business protectionism. Yet, it contains within its text and original purpose a workable principle: suppliers should not be permitted to harm competition by granting discriminatory advantages to some customers while refusing to make equivalent opportunities available to their competitors. Returning to that principle—without expanding it into a crusade against all quantity discounts—offers a balanced path forward. It honors congressional intent, protects the competitive process rather than specific competitors, and avoids the consumer harm that comes from discouraging the very efficiencies that drive lower prices in competitive markets.
Policymakers and courts should resist both wholesale abandonment of the RPA and its transformation into something broader than the law Congress actually passed. A disciplined, case-by-case enforcement focused on true discrimination, not bulk pricing itself, is the nuanced middle ground the statute and consumers deserve.
Author Disclosure: Darren Tucker is a partner in the antitrust group at Vinson & Elkins, where he counsels clients on matters related to the Robinson-Patman Act. You can read our disclosure policy here.
Articles represent the opinions of their writers, not necessarily those of the University of Chicago, the Booth School of Business, or its faculty.
Subscribe here for ProMarket’s weekly newsletter, Special Interest, to stay up to date on ProMarket’s coverage of the political economy and other content from the Stigler Center.
