Settlements & Refunds · Notice
Southern Glazer’s settles FTC price discrimination case
The largest US wine and spirits distributor agreed to limit price gaps between big chains and small retailers in 26 states, under a six-year order with an independent monitor.
The Federal Trade Commission has settled its Robinson-Patman Act case against Southern Glazer's Wine and Spirits LLC, which it calls the nation's largest distributor of wine and spirits. The FTC announced the settlement on October 2, 2026. It resolves a lawsuit the Commission brought in 2024 and is the FTC's first enforcement action under the Robinson-Patman Act in a generation, according to the agency.
The allegation
The Robinson-Patman Act makes it generally unlawful for a seller to charge a disfavored retailer more than a competitor for similar goods where that harms competition. The FTC's complaint said Southern charged independent retailers significantly higher prices for identical bottles of wine and spirits than it charged large chains such as Total Wine, Walmart and Kroger in the same period, even when the stores were a few miles or a few blocks apart. It said Southern did this through discounts and rebates that small competitors could not get and that were not justified by differences in the cost of distributing to different retailers.
What the order does
The proposed stipulated order covers nearly all of Southern's wine and spirits sales to the five largest chain retailers in 26 states. It targets what the FTC calls paired transactions: a sale of a product to a chain at one price while the same product is sold, at about the same time, to a nearby independent retailer at a significantly higher price. Southern is in violation if, among other conditions, the price gap exceeds a maximum threshold set from state-specific operating costs and recurs, adding up to more than $5,000 over 12 months.
Where a set of discriminatory paired transactions meets the order's specifications, Southern can resolve the violation by paying the independent retailer 1.5 times the full aggregated price difference. If Southern does not fix it, the FTC can bring an enforcement action, and if the Commission prevails, Southern must pay the retailer double the aggregated differences. The order lasts six years and is overseen by an independent monitor. The Commission voted 2-0 to issue it, and Chairman Andrew Ferguson and Commissioner Mark Meador issued separate statements.
What it does not do
No money changes hands under the order today and there is no claim form. Like the FTC's settlement with Corteva, it is a conduct order: it works, if it works, by changing how a company prices, rather than by paying people who were overcharged. The FTC notes that stipulated orders have the force of law only when approved and signed by the district court judge, and the order was filed in the US District Court for the Central District of California. The agency says the settlement is meant to make it easier for small businesses to compete with large chains and to help consumers reach lower-priced wine and spirits at local retailers; that outcome depends on how the order is enforced. What a settlement without admission means explains how to read an order like this one, and the FTC refunds tracker lists the programs that do pay consumers.
What to do
- There is no claim to file. This is a conduct order aimed at how a distributor prices to chains and independents; it does not create a refund fund for shoppers. ftc.gov
- If you run an independent wine or spirits retailer in one of the 26 states and buy from Southern, read the proposed order and the FTC’s description of “paired” transactions to see how the remedy is triggered. ftc.gov
- Watch for the court’s approval of the order; the FTC says stipulated orders have the force of law only once the judge signs.
Questions readers ask
- Does this settlement pay anyone now?
- No. The order does not create a payment fund. It works through limits on Southern’s pricing, and it provides cash to harmed independent retailers only if an independent monitor finds Southern violates the order later: Southern can resolve a violation by paying 1.5 times the full price differential, and if the FTC brings an enforcement action and prevails, Southern pays double.
- What exactly did the FTC allege?
- That Southern charged significantly higher prices for identical bottles of wine and spirits, in the same period, to independent retailers than to competing large chains such as Total Wine, Walmart and Kroger, even when the stores were a few miles or a few blocks apart, through discounts and rebates small competitors could not get and that were not justified by differences in the cost of serving them.
- Which states are covered?
- Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Delaware, Florida, Hawaii, Illinois, Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maryland, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, Nevada, New Mexico, New York, North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas and Washington.
- When does the order take effect?
- The FTC’s order is a proposed stipulated order filed in federal court. The FTC notes that stipulated orders have the force of law when approved and signed by the District Court judge. Once in effect it lasts six years.
Filed under: FTC refunds: who is being paid now
Mentioned:Federal Trade Commission
How we reported this
Built from 1 primary document linked in the Source Card. Every number was copied from the document, not from another outlet.
This page describes public documents and agency procedures. It is not legal advice, and FactFiled has no attorney on its review panel; the editor checked the page against the documents it cites. For a decision about your own case, use the official source linked above or consult a lawyer.
Written by Mirza Seraj Baig · Checked against the documents in the source card (editorial standards).