A Victory for Consumers and Independent Retailers: Why Blocking the Kroger-Albertsons Merger Was the Right Call

A surprise came last week when both a federal judge and a Washington State judge blocked the proposed merger between Kroger and Albertsons, the two largest grocery chains in the United States. The FTC, labor unions, consumer groups, and even the two retailers' own workers applauded the ruling, seemingly agreeing that blocking it not only preserved competition but also reaffirmed the government’s role in ensuring that American shoppers have access to affordable, high-quality food options in a fair marketplace.

The courts determined that the merger would create an overwhelming concentration of market power, reducing competition in an already consolidated grocery industry. Together, Kroger and Albertsons control thousands of stores and a vast share of the U.S. grocery market. The judges cited concerns that combining these giants would lead to higher prices, fewer choices, and diminished service for millions of consumers.

The Federal Trade Commission (FTC), state attorneys general, and consumer advocacy groups provided compelling evidence that the merger would harm both shoppers and suppliers. Experts highlighted how the combined entity could dictate terms to suppliers, forcing smaller farms and food producers out of business while limiting consumer access to diverse, local, and specialty products.

The judges ruled on what consumers already know — when competition shrinks, shoppers lose. The proposed merger would have consolidated grocery retailing power into the hands of one dominant player, reducing incentives for competitive pricing and product variety.

What few talk about, but experts knew: reduced competition could have triggered widespread closures of stores deemed "redundant," particularly in low-income and rural areas. Stores which serve the elderly and the poor are rarely as profitable as those which serve affluent suburban neighborhoods These closures could have deepened existing food deserts, leaving already underserved communities with even fewer options for fresh and healthy food.

This ruling is more than just a legal decision — it’s a recognition that independent grocers are essential to a vibrant, competitive food market. Across the country, independent grocers provide personalized service, local products, and competitive prices that help balance the scales against national chains. The National Grocers Association (NGA) has research to back up the claims. Less competition leads to less choice and price increases — something American families can ill afford amid rising inflation.

Blocking the merger keeps the playing field more level. It prevents a single retail behemoth from gaining an outsized advantage through sheer market dominance, giving smaller, family-owned grocers a fighting chance to continue serving their communities.

Now, Albertsons is suing Kroger for failing to pursue the deal aggressively enough to pass FTC muster, by offering to spin-off more stores. When national chains sell stores, they are often good opportunities for independents to take over. Our owners can make marginal stores work where national chains cannot because we are so hyper-local in our merchandising and hiring.

As part of the merger, one of our largest wholesale partners C&S Wholesale Grocers was going to acquire some of those spin-off stores. I am sure they are frustrated at having spent so much effort into the deal that apparently neither partner was aligned on in the first place.

This decision should be viewed as a moment when government did its job: standing up for consumers, supporting small businesses, and preserving competition in a critical industry. It’s a reminder that antitrust laws exist to prevent monopolies and ensure a free, fair, and open marketplace.

The grocery industry is the backbone of local economies, supporting farmers, suppliers, and millions of jobs. Protecting its competitive landscape is essential for economic health and food security.

While this ruling is a significant victory, the fight for fair competition in the grocery industry is far from over. Independent grocers must continue working with policymakers, community leaders, and consumers to advocate for policies that strengthen food supply chains and ensure access to affordable, quality food for all.

Thanks to the collective work of independent grocers and NGA, we’ve seen great momentum in enforcing the antitrust laws that are already on the books. Recently, the FTC took steps to restore enforcement of the Robinson-Patman Act (RPA), a long-overlooked antitrust law that combats price discrimination and levels the playing field for small and medium-sized businesses. The RPA prohibits suppliers from granting unfair pricing advantages to dominant retailers, ensuring equal access to discounts for all retailers and enhancing competition across the marketplace.

NGA, which has long advocated for RPA enforcement, hailed the FTC's action as a critical move toward lowering food costs and increasing competition. NGA President & CEO Greg Ferrara called the decision a “historic vote” that sends a clear message to dominant players: abuses of buyer power will not be tolerated.

At the Independent Grocers Alliance, we remain committed to supporting our members and fostering a vibrant, competitive industry that puts people first. The recent action by the FTC marks a pivotal step in this direction, — and serves as proof that, when done right, government can be a powerful force for good.