Shoppers have long flocked to Walmart for low prices, but new details suggest those savings may come at a hidden cost.
In January 2025, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) filed a lawsuit against PepsiCo under the Robinson‑Patman Act, a law designed to prevent suppliers from giving bigger retailers preferential pricing. The complaint claimed PepsiCo offered Walmart lower prices than other retailers, giving the retail giant a competitive advantage.
Unsealed documents revealed that PepsiCo allegedly pressured Food Lion to raise prices on Pepsi products while reducing promotional support, ensuring Walmart could sell at lower prices. This created a “waterbed effect,” where prices at other retailers rose to keep Walmart’s costs low.
The FTC later dismissed the case in May 2025, leaving the matter unresolved. However, a new class action lawsuit has emerged, targeting both PepsiCo and Walmart for allegedly running a decade-long pricing scheme that advantaged Walmart while inflating prices elsewhere.
PepsiCo and Walmart maintain that their pricing practices are standard and competitive. Despite this, the situation raises concerns about how preferential pricing can disadvantage smaller retailers, reduce competition, and affect consumer choice.
The case also highlights the relevance of the Robinson‑Patman Act, which has largely gone unenforced for decades. Advocates argue that renewed scrutiny could push regulators to take stronger action against pricing practices that favour dominant retailers, potentially reshaping how suppliers and large chains negotiate prices.