Events
Jenny Speck to Speak at Lockton U.S. Energy Risk Summit
Partner Jenny Speck will speak at Lockton’s U.S. Energy Risk Summit on November 12, 2026, in Houston, Texas. The summit …
November 12, 2026
November 12, 2026 • 1-minute read
Recent commentary has rightly drawn attention to the Robinson-Patman Act (RPA) and the potential virtues of reviving enforcement after decades of dormancy. Congress passed the RPA in 1936 to address concerns that large chain stores were extracting secret or exclusive concessions from suppliers that smaller independent businesses could not match. The statute prohibits a supplier from selling a commodity or product of like grade and quality to buyers at different prices where the effect “may be substantially to lessen competition” or injure competition with any person who either grants or knowingly receives the benefit of such price discrimination. Critically, the RPA retained—and in some ways strengthened—defenses for price discrimination justified by actual cost savings from differing methods or quantities of sale, good-faith meeting of competition, and changing conditions. So, for example, a supplier could discount a sale to a retailer if it bought the product in bulk. The law targeted abusive favoritism, not price differences that arise when buyers purchase at different scales.
The law fell out of favor as much of the antitrust community came to view its application to be harmful to consumer welfare, and federal enforcers did not bring an RPA case for over twenty years. But the antitrust enforcement agencies of the Biden administration revived the statute as it sought to prioritize the protection of small businesses.
Antitrust experts have explored whether the statute can protect smaller businesses from the advantages secured by powerful buyers, debated raising-rivals’-costs frameworks, and questioned whether modern antitrust law’s focus on consumer welfare has overlooked secondary-line injury to independent retailers. These discussions reflect a broader conversation about whether the 1936 law still has a useful role in today’s economy.
Originally published by ProMarket, the publication of the Stigler Center at The University of Chicago Booth School of Business
This information is provided by Vinson & Elkins LLP for educational and informational purposes only and is not intended, nor should it be construed, as legal advice.
