Photo of Alezeh Rauf

Alezeh Rauf

Alezeh Rauf is an associate in the firm’s Washington, DC office. She is a member of the Antitrust/Competition Practice Group.

Contact:Read more about Alezeh RaufEmail

On December 12, 2024, the U.S. Federal Trade Commission (FTC) authorized its staff to file a complaint against alcohol distributor Southern Glazer’s Wine and Spirits, LLC (“Southern Glazer’s”). The complaint alleges that the company engaged in price discrimination—charging higher prices to independent businesses and lower prices to large national and regional chains—in violation of Section 2(a) of the Robinson-Patman Act (“RPA”). The Commission voted 3-2 along party lines to file the lawsuit in federal district court, with the two Republican-appointed Commissioners—Commissioners Melissa Holyoak and Andrew Ferguson—issuing strongly worded dissenting statements (see here and here, respectively). Prior to this case, the federal antitrust agencies—the FTC and the Antitrust Division of the U.S. Department of Justice (the “Antitrust Division”)—had not brought an enforcement action under the RPA in more than two decades.

The Robinson-Patman Act:

According to the Supreme Court in Volvo Trucks N. Am., Inc. v. Reeder-Simco GMC, Inc.,546 U.S. 164, 175 (2006), Congress enactedthe RPA in 1936 to “target the perceived harm to competition occasioned by powerful buyers” in response to the advent of large chain stores. At the time, Congress was worried that large firms could extract lower prices from manufacturers or suppliers than smaller businesses. Id.

The RPA covers several categories of conduct. Most relevant here, Section 2(a) makes it unlawful for any person “engaged in commerce” to “discriminate in price between purchasers of commodities of like grade and quality” where the effect of such discrimination may be to lessen competition, tend to create a monopoly, or injure competition with any person who receives the benefit of such discrimination or their customers. There are several potential legal defenses to this provision, including that the price difference was justified by costs incurred by the seller, that the lower price was available to all customers, that the price differential did not cause the customer that paid a higher price to lose sales, and that the price difference was the result of meeting a competitor’s price.Continue Reading FTC Brings First Robinson-Patman Act Case in More Than Two Decades

On July 9, 2024, the Federal Trade Commission (“FTC”) voted 4-1 (with Commissioner Melissa Holyoak dissenting) to release an Interim Staff Report (the “Interim Report”) entitled: Pharmacy Benefit Managers: The Powerful Middlemen Inflating Drug Costs and Squeezing Main Street Pharmacies. The Interim Report describes what FTC staff has uncovered…

Continue Reading Federal Trade Commission asserts significant anticompetitive harms in Interim Staff Report on the pharmacy benefit manager industry

July 10, 2024, Covington Alert

On July 3, 2024, Judge Ada Brown of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas granted the motions for a preliminary injunction—filed by Ryan LLC (“Ryan”) and several trade associations, including the U.S. Chamber of Commerce (“Chamber”)—to prevent the FTC’s rule banning non-compete clauses from going into effect, but the court’s order only applies to the named plaintiffs (i.e., it is not a nationwide injunction). The court has indicated that it will issue a final order on the merits by August 30, 2024, just a few days before the FTC’s rule is scheduled to go into effect on September 4. It is possible that Judge Brown enjoins the non-compete ban nationwide in her final order.

Background

In April, the FTC issued a final rule banning almost all non-competes with U.S. workers, with narrow exceptions, pursuant to its claimed authority to issue competition-related rules under Sections 5 and 6(g) of the FTC Act. That same day, Ryan challenged the FTC’s rule and, shortly thereafter, filed a motion to stay and preliminarily enjoin the rule, arguing that the FTC has no statutory authority to promulgate the rule, that the rule is the product of an unconstitutional exercise of power, and that the FTC’s acts were arbitrary and capricious. The Chamber and other trade groups intervened as plaintiffs on May 8, making substantially the same arguments.

The Order

In its Order, the court found that the Plaintiffs had demonstrated a likelihood of success that (1) the FTC does not have the statutory authority to engage in competition-related rulemaking, (2) the non-compete rule is arbitrary and capricious, and (3) the plaintiffs and intervenors had satisfied the standard to obtain injunctive relief.Continue Reading Texas District Court Enjoins FTC’s Rule Banning Non-Compete Clauses