Table of Contents
The Robinson‑Patman Act is an outdated and counterproductive law that raises prices, harms low‑income consumers, and fails to deliver meaningful benefits for small businesses. Because it conflicts with modern antitrust principles and imposes real economic costs, bipartisan experts widely agree it should be repealed rather than revived.
The RPA is inconsistent with the other antitrust laws.
The other antitrust laws, the Sherman and Clayton Acts, as well as the FTC Act, protect consumers, but the plain text of the RPA arguably was designed to protect less efficient businesses from larger, more efficient businesses.
The RPA leads to higher overall prices
The Act discourages discounts. Based on anecdotes, basic economics, and high compliance costs, the “additional costs … are likely substantial.”
The RPA hurts poorer consumers the most
The Act’s requirement of uniform prices “hit some of the poorest consumers the hardest.” According to USDA statistics, “the vast majority of food-stamp purchases are made at large retailers,” but by discouraging large retailers from negotiating discounts, renewed enforcement would disproportionately harm lower income Americans.
The RPA doesn’t help small businesses – and may even hurt them
Though superficially appealing, the RPA “generally appears to have failed in achieving its main objective” of helping smaller businesses—and may have even harmed them. Over time, suppliers found expensive ways to comply with the Act that “are likely to increase the seller’s costs … but do nothing to protect small businesses.” In fact, the Act likely discouraged suppliers from selling to smaller businesses at all to avoid legal risks.
Bipartisan experts recommend the RPA’s repeal
In the 1960s, a report recommended repeal due to the Act’s high costs, limited or non-existent benefits, and inconsistency with other antitrust laws. In 1977, President Carter concluded that “serious consideration” should be given to repeal. In 2007, the bipartisan Antitrust Modernization Commission again recommended that “Congress should repeal the Robinson-Patman Act in its entirety.” In a recent survey, 98% of practitioners agreed that the Act should not be an enforcement priority.
The FTC is limiting RPA enforcement
The FTC recently dismissed a Biden-era RPA suit against Pepsi. Another Biden-era RPA suit, against Southern Glazer remains pending, though then-Commissioner Ferguson dissented from its filing. The Chamber called the suit an “antitrust folly, marked by a partisan attack on rebates that is ultimately inflationary.” This statement could extend to the Robinson Patman Act across the board.
