Robinson-Patman Revived? This Misguided Approach Could Raise Prices

In recent months, some policymakers have expressed a renewed interest in enforcing the Robinson-Patman Act as a way to support small and medium sized businesses. History shows that such efforts likely would raise prices for consumers, disproportionately harm vulnerable populations, and ultimately fail to achieve the intended goal of supporting small businesses.

A Flawed Foundation

Enacted in 1936, the Robinson-Patman Act was designed to prevent price discrimination by requiring businesses to offer the same price for goods to all purchasers, regardless of their size or purchasing power. For example, a manufacturer would have to offer the same price to individual stores as to large national retailers, who buy in bulk. At the time, Congress was responding to the concerns of small businesses, which complained they could not obtain the discounts as chains.

Over time, however, policymakers of both parties realized that the Act’s fundamental flaw lay in its goal of protecting competitors instead of fostering competition—a principle that runs counter to the broader goals of antitrust laws. According to a bipartisan congressional commission, Robinson-Patman is inconsistent with the other antitrust laws, which are designed to protect consumers, not particular competitors. Instead, the Act “was designed to protect small businesses from larger, more efficient businesses.”

Higher Prices for Consumers

As a result, the Robinson-Patman Act actually leads to higher overall prices. By banning discounts to large retailers, the Act has “limit[ed] the extent of discounting generally.” Based on anecdotes, basic economics, and high compliance costs, the “additional costs to consumers … are likely substantial.” For example, the Act discourages volume discounts and other pricing strategies that allow businesses to offer lower prices to larger purchasers, such as big-box retailers. These retailers, in turn, pass on the savings to consumers, lowering the cost of essential goods, especially for consumers who are the most price sensitive.

Even worse, 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; more than half at big-box stores.” These retailers rely on their ability to negotiate discounts to keep prices low. Renewed enforcement of the Robinson-Patman Act likely would eliminate this flexibility, forcing prices upward and disproportionately impacting low-income families who depend on these savings.

The Act’s compliance requirements also impose additional administrative costs on businesses, which are often passed on to consumers. Maintaining detailed records of pricing and sales practices, hiring specialized personnel, and investing in systems to ensure compliance all contribute to higher operational costs. These expenses ultimately find their way into the prices that consumers pay at the checkout counter.

No Help for Small Business

While intended to protect small businesses, its renewed enforcement could ironically harm the very entities it seeks to support. By restricting price differentials, the Act limits the ability of small businesses to negotiate better terms with suppliers. This lack of flexibility can put them at a competitive disadvantage, particularly when competing against larger retailers that can absorb higher costs more effectively.

Additionally, the Act’s uniform pricing requirements might discourage suppliers from selling to smaller businesses altogether, as the legal risks and compliance costs outweigh the potential benefits. This dynamic further isolates small businesses, reducing their access to competitive pricing and hindering their ability to thrive in the marketplace.

Indeed, Robinson-Patman “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. Instead of fostering a level playing field, the Act creates inefficiencies that stifle competition and innovation.

A Better Path

For decades, Republicans and Democrats have called on Congress to repeal the law. In the 1960s, a report commissioned by President Lyndon Johnson, and released under President Richard Nixon, recommended repeal or substantial changes due to the Act’s high costs, limited or non-existent benefits, and inconsistency with other antitrust laws. In 1977, President Jimmy Carter’s Justice Department 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.” These findings underscore the Act’s failure to achieve its objectives and its potential to harm consumers and small businesses alike.

About the author

Sean Heather

Sean Heather is Senior Vice President for International Regulatory Affairs and Antitrust.

Read more