- Plaintiffs allege Pepsi and Walmart coordinated pricing to inflate soft drink costs nationwide
Lawsuit claims Walmart received preferential wholesale prices while rivals paid more
Case follows FTC’s decision to drop a Robinson-Patman Act lawsuit against Pepsi
PepsiCo and Walmart have been accused in a new consumer class action lawsuit of orchestrating a decade-long price-fixing scheme that allegedly inflated the cost of Pepsi soft drinks at retailers across the United States.
The lawsuit, filed Monday in federal court in New York, alleges the two companies entered into an unlawful agreement that gave Walmart preferential wholesale pricing on Pepsi products while forcing competing retailers to pay higher prices. Plaintiffs say the arrangement violated federal antitrust law and ultimately harmed consumers by driving up retail prices outside Walmart stores.
Allegations of preferential pricing
According to the complaint, Pepsi offered Walmart favorable pricing and other incentives designed to maintain a consistent “price gap” that allowed the retail giant to sell Pepsi products at lower prices than its competitors. To preserve that gap, the lawsuit alleges, Pepsi raised wholesale prices charged to other retailers, effectively shifting higher costs onto consumers who did not shop at Walmart.
The plaintiffs contend that the pricing arrangement discouraged competition among retailers and insulated Walmart from price pressure, while smaller chains and independent stores were left at a disadvantage.
Link to prior FTC enforcement
The consumer lawsuit follows the Federal Trade Commission’s decision in May to drop a case brought during President Joe Biden’s administration accusing Pepsi of violating the Robinson-Patman Act, a 1936 law aimed at preventing discriminatory pricing practices that favor large buyers over smaller competitors.
The FTC’s case named Pepsi as the sole defendant and did not include Walmart. In that matter, the agency alleged Pepsi had offered preferential pricing and promotional benefits to Walmart while denying similar terms to other retailers. Pepsi denied wrongdoing, and the case was later withdrawn by the agency.
Plaintiffs in the new lawsuit cite similar conduct, arguing that Pepsi’s alleged preferential treatment of Walmart went beyond lawful discounting and crossed into anticompetitive coordination.
Proposed nationwide consumer class
The proposed class includes all U.S. consumers who purchased Pepsi soft drinks from non-Walmart retailers since January 2015. The lawsuit seeks damages and other relief on behalf of consumers who allegedly paid higher prices as a result of the claimed scheme.
Pepsi and Walmart have not yet publicly responded to the new lawsuit. The case adds to ongoing scrutiny of pricing practices between major manufacturers and dominant retailers, particularly as regulators and private plaintiffs examine whether discount arrangements unlawfully harm competition and consumers.