* Southern has charged significantly higher prices for sales of identical bottles of wine and spirits during the same time period to independent retailers than to competing large chains, even when they are located a few miles or even a few blocks from each other. Price differences can be significant for the same bottle of wine or spirits, which directly impacts the cost for consumers.
* Southern engages in discriminatory pricing via a variety of mechanisms, such as by offering quantity discounts and rebates to large buyers that are inaccessible to small competitors and are not justified by differences in the cost of distributing products to different retailers, the FTC’s complaint states.
* For example, disfavored independent retailers frequently are not informed about the large quantity discounts, rebates, and other special deals available to favored chain retailers, even when it may be logistically feasible for the independent retailer to participate in the deal.
The FTC’s enforcement action via the Robinson-Patman Act does not prohibit quantity discounts, also known as volume discounts. Instead, under the Robinson-Patman Act, volume discounts are permitted so long as a seller can demonstrate real cost efficiencies achieved from selling goods at different quantities to purchasers. However, as the complaint alleges, in many instances, Southern’s price discrimination exceeds any such cost savings permitted under the Robinson-Patman Act.
1 Comment
>Southern’s Discriminatory Tactics
* Southern has charged significantly higher prices for sales of identical bottles of wine and spirits during the same time period to independent retailers than to competing large chains, even when they are located a few miles or even a few blocks from each other. Price differences can be significant for the same bottle of wine or spirits, which directly impacts the cost for consumers.
* Southern engages in discriminatory pricing via a variety of mechanisms, such as by offering quantity discounts and rebates to large buyers that are inaccessible to small competitors and are not justified by differences in the cost of distributing products to different retailers, the FTC’s complaint states.
* For example, disfavored independent retailers frequently are not informed about the large quantity discounts, rebates, and other special deals available to favored chain retailers, even when it may be logistically feasible for the independent retailer to participate in the deal.
The FTC’s enforcement action via the Robinson-Patman Act does not prohibit quantity discounts, also known as volume discounts. Instead, under the Robinson-Patman Act, volume discounts are permitted so long as a seller can demonstrate real cost efficiencies achieved from selling goods at different quantities to purchasers. However, as the complaint alleges, in many instances, Southern’s price discrimination exceeds any such cost savings permitted under the Robinson-Patman Act.