The lawsuit is the second Robinson-Patman Act case filed by the FTC during the Biden administration. In December, the FTC sued alcohol distributor Southern Glazer’s Wine and Spirits LLC for charging mom-and-pop grocers higher prices than large retail chains.

"Today's complaint against Pepsi is wholly deficient, not only because the pleadings fail to state a claim, but because the Majority rushed the case out the door before it had evidence to support the allegations,

The agency claims the soda giant gave “unfair” pricing advantages to a larger retailer, forcing consumers to pay more at competing stores. Pepsi “strongly disputes” the allegations.

A lawsuit filed by the Federal Trade Commission alleges that food and beverage maker PepsiCo engaged in illegal price discrimination by giving unfair price advantages to one big-box retailer.

According to the FTC’s complaint, Pepsi has been providing unfair pricing advantages to one of its largest customers—a major big box retailer—while raising prices for competing retailers and customers. Reuters reports that the retailer is none other than Walmart Inc. WMT , citing a source familiar with the discussions.

Company’s conduct has forced competing retailers, including convenience stores, to pay higher prices, agency says

The US Federal Trade Commission (FTC) on Friday sued PepsiCo in a last-minute blitz of lawsuits before the end of the Joe Biden administration, alleging that the beverage giant forced many consumers to pay higher prices by giving Walmart unfair pricing advantages,

The Federal Trade Commission sued PepsiCo (PEP) alleging that the second-largest food company in the world has engaged in illegal price

The Federal Trade Commission filed a lawsuit against PepsiCo ( NASDAQ: PEP) on Friday for alleged illegal price discrimination. The FTC alleges that the food and beverage giant has been providing unfair pricing advantages to a large,

The Federal Trade Commission is suing Pepsi, alleging it has rigged competition by offering unfair pricing deals to a big retailer at the expense of smaller rivals, resulting in higher costs for shoppers.

The commission alleges that the retailer, whose name was redacted in the statement from commissioners, received “unfair pricing advantages” that were not made available to others.