back
2 comments
Robinson-Patman is a bad law. Even if it were a good law, it would be effectively impossible to enforce equitably and not capriciously, which is probably why it hasn’t been.

The government telling competitive buyers and sellers which kinds of price negotiation are legal and which are not is terrible economics because it attenuates price signals.

Pre-1980's, it seems to have been enforced well enough to keep a whole lot of mom-and-pop grocery stores in business.

I'm thinking the faded-out enforcement was due to a certain 1980's President, and his administration's "Greed is God" ethos. A lot of protections for the little guy got dumped on his watch.

You don’t have to guess. Wikipedia’s cite for the claim of decline says:

Enforcement of the RPA is overseen by the Federal Trade Commission, but cases have declined since the 1980s due to the complexity of the law and the requirement to prove intended damages. Juries in recent cases claiming RPA violations have not found the defendants guilty.

> note how the modern Democratic Party... utterly failed to give a crap about the issue

From the article on the Act -

"Enforcement of the RPA has declined since the 1980s. In 2022, FTC commissioner Alvaro Bedoya endorsed a revival of enforcing the RPA in order to curb price discrimination. In April 2024, sixteen members of Congress wrote to the FTC urging for a revival of the enforcement of the Act. In December 2024, the FTC sued liquor distributor Southern Glazer's under the Act, asserting that they charged small stores more than they charged large chains. On January 17, 2025, the closing days of the Biden Administration, the FTC filed a lawsuit against PepsiCo. In May 2025, The FTC voted to dismiss the PepsiCo suit but the suit against Southern Glazer's is proceeding."

It's a low bar but the Democratic party has given more of a crap about it than anyone else.