KROGER-ALBERTSONS MERGER BLOCKED — BUT WHO IS PAYING THE PRICE?

ISN says the FTC must now answer a difficult question: did stopping America’s biggest supermarket merger protect consumers — or simply leave workers and stores exposed?

The Kroger-Albertsons merger was supposed to create one of America’s largest supermarket companies.

The Federal Trade Commission fought it.

The regulator argued that combining the two supermarket giants would reduce competition, weaken consumer choice and potentially push grocery prices higher. In February 2024, the FTC formally challenged the proposed acquisition, saying the deal threatened competition between two major supermarket operators.

The merger ultimately collapsed.

But now comes the uncomfortable part.

Albertsons is cutting back.

Stores have closed or been earmarked for closure during 2026, while the company has also reduced its workforce. At least a dozen Albertsons locations had closed or been marked for closure by May, according to an analysis of local reports and company information.

This is precisely the outcome Albertsons warned about during the merger battle.

The company told the court that if the transaction was blocked, it could be forced to lay off employees, close stores and withdraw from some markets.

Now workers are seeing the consequences.

ISN’s message to the FTC

The FTC was right to scrutinise the merger. Competition matters. Consumers need choice. Nobody wants an American grocery market dominated by a handful of companies.

But competition policy cannot be judged only by the number of companies left standing on paper.

It must also be judged by what happens to stores, jobs, communities and consumers.

If a merger is blocked and the consequence is that a supermarket chain becomes weaker, closes stores and cuts jobs, the regulator must explain whether consumers have genuinely benefited.

A supermarket that disappears from a neighbourhood is not competition.

A worker who loses a job is not a theoretical market statistic.

And a community left with fewer grocery options is not necessarily better served simply because a merger was prevented.

ISN believes the FTC now has a responsibility to look at the consequences of its decision.

The question is no longer whether Kroger and Albertsons should have merged.

That decision has been made.

The question is whether the alternative has delivered what regulators promised.

If stopping the merger was supposed to protect American consumers, where is the evidence that consumers and supermarket workers are better off today?

That is a question the FTC should answer.