- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Winter Olympics
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: FTC sues Pepsi for pricing discrimination. Corner store higher than Walmart
Posted on 1/17/25 at 8:10 pm to HighSpark
Posted on 1/17/25 at 8:10 pm to HighSpark
Not mentioned- they also sued John Deere for prohibiting farmers from repairing their own equipment, UnitedHealth for overcharging on cancer meds by 1000%, CapitalOne for cheating their customers out of billions, CashApp for letting scammers run wild on their app and not offering any customer service to scam victims and even made debanking illegal!
2
Posted on 1/17/25 at 8:12 pm to MrLSU
Can she lower the price of a beer at sporting events?
Posted on 1/17/25 at 8:14 pm to MrLSU
quote:
This move is big.
Is it though?
Posted on 1/17/25 at 8:16 pm to MrLSU
This is the dumbest shite I’ve read today and I spent a lot of time here this afternoon.
Posted on 1/17/25 at 8:17 pm to TexasTiger08
quote:
Can she lower the price of a beer at sporting events?
How about comparing asset allocated capital gains tax to sales tax.
Posted on 1/17/25 at 8:23 pm to MrLSU
At face value this sounds pretty dumb. There are past laws to help prevent smaller businesses from effectively being pushed out by bad business practices. You don't want the price difference to be do blatantly bad that only a handful of businesses can afford to carry these products. I'd be curious to see how much of a difference Walmart is getting in comparison to other businesses that don't carry anywhere near the volume.
This is also another reason why Coke is superior.
This is also another reason why Coke is superior.
Posted on 1/17/25 at 8:29 pm to MrLSU
quote:
Elizabeth Warren
What a useless count
Posted on 1/17/25 at 8:39 pm to Jimbeaux
quote:
Everybody KNOWS and EXPECTS that prices are cheaper at big box stores, and that CONVENIENCE STORES cost more because although they can’t get bulk discounts, they are way more CONVENIENT.
We don’t need the government to fix this.
The suit has nothing to do with equally offered volume discounts. Those are legal. While the tweets don't give proper or really any context it is important to note in the FTC tweet they talk about illegal conduct that is NOT what you are assuming it is. Check out 15 USC 13 and FTC v Southern Glazer's for more understanding of the difference between legal and illegal spiffs and pricing at the wholesale level.
Posted on 1/17/25 at 8:41 pm to thumperpait
quote:
Elizabeth Warren
quote:
in coushatta
ISWYDT
This post was edited on 1/17/25 at 8:42 pm
Posted on 1/17/25 at 9:47 pm to Breesus
quote:
The government should not be deciding what discounts soft drinks are allowed to give to retailers.
Well the law is almost 100 years old, so take it up with your woke great grandpaw
Posted on 1/17/25 at 10:00 pm to MrLSU
What sort of company would they be if they’d refused to give their largest customer a volume discount? They’re supposed to tell Walmart frick you if they request it?
The government is always surprised to learn that businesses can’t afford to live in make believe land with them.
The government is always surprised to learn that businesses can’t afford to live in make believe land with them.
Posted on 1/17/25 at 10:13 pm to UncleLogger
quote:
What sort of company would they be if they’d refused to give their largest customer a volume discount?
The case isn't about universally offered volume discounts.
I will say I think the case is deficient on its face but for legal reasons that have not been broached in this thread.
Posted on 1/17/25 at 11:53 pm to Higgysmalls
quote:
Vendors sell to Walmart Cheaper than other Vendors
Well of course, wal-mart is probably everybody's biggest customer, so it only makes sense they would get the largest discount. Their order takes up half of the truck, if anything, having that large of a customer makes everything else a little bit cheaper for everyone else. It brings down the cost of service.
Posted on 1/18/25 at 12:00 am to HighSpark
quote:
Not mentioned- they also sued John Deere for prohibiting farmers from repairing their own equipment, UnitedHealth for overcharging on cancer meds by 1000%, CapitalOne for cheating their customers out of billions, CashApp for letting scammers run wild on their app and not offering any customer service to scam victims and even made debanking illegal!
Probably because that’s not what the story or this thread is about. Try to stay focused. Reread the thread title if it helps.
Posted on 1/18/25 at 12:16 am to HighSpark
quote:
CapitalOne for cheating their customers out of billions
I don't know if taking advantage of the average American's ignorance rises to the level of actually "cheating" them or not
Posted on 1/18/25 at 1:35 am to Obtuse1
quote:
The case isn't about universally offered volume discounts.
Semantics. They’re just trying to keep selling them some damn Pepsi. Seems like ordinary business to me.
quote:
Despite efforts at creative drafting, the promotions alleged in the Majority’s Complaint are, in reality, Pepsi’s effort to secure sales of its product to the retailer. That is, the promotions reflect Pepsi’s best efforts to ensure that the original sale from Pepsi to the retailer occurs and continues in the future. The gravamen of all the conduct alleged in the Complaint is that Pepsi provides discounts—even if renamed promotions—to keep the retailer satisfied and continuing to purchase Pepsi products. None of the allegations plausibly allege that Pepsi’s discounts are provided to help the retailer facilitate the resale of Pepsi products. For this reason, the Complaint does not plausibly allege that the promotions are for the resale of the Pepsi products, and the Complaint fails to state a claim.
The Complaint’s further efforts to allege that Pepsi provided services to the retailer do not fare any better than the alleged promotional payments. Again, the goal of Pepsi’s services is to secure the original sale between Pepsi and the retailer. Moreover, services provided by Pepsi appear meant to ensure that the retailer remains satisfied with the price advantages provided by Pepsi. As the Commission has said previously, “while suppliers may even have discussed selling techniques with would-be buyers, plainly the suppliers’ principal purpose in engaging in these acts was to induce retail store buyers to make the original purchases, not to provide marketing or promotional assistance to them.” Here, the Complaint does not allege that the so-called services are there to help the retailer with the resale of Pepsi products—Pepsi provides the services to the retailer to preserve its relationship with the retailer and thereby facilitate the original sale of products between Pepsi and the retailer.
Finally, for unlawful conduct under both Sections 2(d) and 2(e), any payments or services provided cannot be available on “proportionally equal terms” to the retailer’s competitors. The Complaint’s allegations in this regard are entirely conclusory. I have seen no evidence that analyzes what level of promotions or other services that Pepsi provides to the “competitors” of the retailer, nor have I seen any evidence that robustly analyzes who competes with the retailer. Such conclusory allegations do not make the claims plausible, nor do they provide reason to believe the law has been violated.
quote:
When passing Sections 2(d) and 2(e) of the Robinson-Patman Act, Congress’ objective was to enact a strict liability regime regarding cooperative promotional arrangements that operate to confer concealed discriminatory benefits to favored buyers. As the Complaint plainly pleads, Pepsi’s promotions to the retailer are not disguised discriminatory discounts but rather ordinary price concessions.
Posted on 1/18/25 at 1:41 am to LSUSkip
quote:
Well of course, wal-mart is probably everybody's biggest customer, so it only makes sense they would get the largest discount. Their order takes up half of the truck, if anything, having that large of a customer makes everything else a little bit cheaper for everyone else. It brings down the cost of service.
Again that is not what the case is about and if volume discounts are generally applied across all buyers they are legal.
The FTC is alleging Robinson-Patman Act violations similar to the Southern Glazers case. This act prevents wholesalers in interstate commerce from using discriminatory pricing or allowances. Volume discounts are one of the defenses and there are many more, prices can also be lower to compete with other wholesalers. Cases like this tend to be complex with lots of moving parts and would not even make a prima facie case if it is just volume pricing. Proving these cases is very difficult without internal documents or whistle-blowers because usually there are plenty of ways to fabricate (if one needs to) defenses.
Posted on 1/18/25 at 2:11 am to UncleLogger
quote:
Semantics. They’re just trying to keep selling them some damn Pepsi. Seems like ordinary business to me.
It isn't semantics, at least to a lawyer who works in the area.
I have said I don't think the FTC has presented a solid case but the majority of the commissioners thought they did probably because making a prima facie case under Robinson-Patman and 15 USC 13 is relatively easy. There are lots of defenses to refute this.
In very simple terms a wholesaler engaged in interstate commerce must provide similar prices to similarly situated buyers.
Brief example:
Pepsi sells 100k cases of Pepsi a week to Walmart for $3 a case
Pepsi sells 100k cases of Pepsi a week to Kroger for $3.50 a case
This on its face is a violation of the Robinson Act and 15 USC 13.
Let's consider a simple defense.
First, we will assume the Pepsi is not sold FOB and delivery is included.
If Walmart has a distribution center next door to all the Pepsi plants but the nearest Kroger distribution centers are at least 100 miles from a plant then they are no longer similarly situated buyers and the .50 per case premium may well be supported.
Federal law going back over 80 years doesn't allow wholesalers to use discriminatory pricing but there are lots of ways to show despite price differences it does not run afoul of the law. Based on the complaint I don't think Pepsi is in the wrong but they could be.
Since you took the time to look up and post one of the 2 dissents you are at least marginally interested in the subject. Look up the Robinson-Patman Act, read 15 USC 13, and the Fred Myers guides which focus on advertising and merchandising allowances which must also be equal for similarly situated buyers. If you do that you will have at least a base-level understanding of this type of case and why it is reasonable that the laws exist. However, it doesn't mean you will think this case is viable but you won't be still mired in arguing a non sequiter.
Posted on 1/18/25 at 5:56 am to JoeHackett
quote:
Everything costs more at a convenience store. I've never noticed Pepsi being outrageously more expensive than Coca-Cola.
I’ve got quite a few vending machines. Enough so, that I order around 200 cases of soda per week.
Coke products cost me $0.91 per 20 oz. bottle wholesale.
Pepsi products cost me $1.23 per 20 oz. bottle wholesale.
Page 2 of 4
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News