The high-stakes legal battle between the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) and grocery giants Kroger and Albertsons has significant implications for consumers, workers, and small communities across the United States. The proposed $24.6 billion merger between the two companies threatens to reduce competition, harm labor rights, and increase grocery prices, according to economic justice advocates and the FTC.
The merger would combine two of the largest grocery chains in the country, raising concerns about the potential for a monopoly, especially in small and rural communities. The FTC, supported by eight states and the District of Columbia, has taken legal action to block the merger, arguing that it would stifle competition and create a market dominated by a single player. The trial, which began in a U.S. District Court in Portland, Oregon, is expected to last several weeks, with U.S. District Judge Adrienne Nelson presiding.
The FTC’s case is built on the premise that the merger would lead to higher grocery prices, reduced quality, and fewer choices for consumers. One of the most striking examples comes from Gunnison, Colorado, where residents could be forced to drive 65 miles to reach a non-Kroger supermarket if the merger proceeds. This scenario highlights the potential for grocery deserts to emerge in small and rural communities, leaving residents without convenient access to essential goods.
Economic and social impacts extend beyond just access to groceries. Residents in areas like Seattle have already experienced grocery store closures, and there is a growing fear that the Kroger-Albertsons merger would exacerbate this trend. Debbie Wheeler, a Seattle resident, noted that a nearby QFC store closed four years ago, forcing her to travel further for groceries. If more stores close as a result of the merger, similar inconveniences and disruptions could become widespread.
The merger’s impact on workers has also drawn significant concern, particularly from labor unions like the United Food and Commercial Workers International Union (UFCW). The UFCW warns that the merger would weaken workers’ bargaining power, especially in regions where Kroger and Albertsons stores are located near each other. Without competition between these two employers, workers would have fewer options and less leverage in contract negotiations.
One poignant example is Leonard De Monte, an Albertsons employee in Woodland Hills, California. De Monte was represented by the UFCW in 2015 when his grocery store was sold as part of an earlier Albertsons merger. The deal led to a demotion to minimum wage for De Monte, who had to work his way back up to a $27-per-hour union wage. Now, with the Kroger-Albertsons merger looming, De Monte fears that his store could be sold again, putting him at risk of another demotion and the loss of his benefits. “I have great health benefits because I’ve been with the company so long,” De Monte told The New York Times. “If I lose my health benefits, I would have to pay out of pocket.”
The Economic Policy Institute’s analysis further underscores the potential harm to workers, estimating that the merger could reduce total annual earnings of grocery store workers in affected metropolitan areas by $334 million. The FTC bolstered its case by presenting text messages from Kroger executives who complained that Albertsons had forced them “to accept more worker compensation,” highlighting the potential for worsened working conditions post-merger.
Kroger and Albertsons have attempted to justify the merger by arguing that it is necessary to compete with big box stores like Walmart and Costco. They claim that the merger would lead to lower prices for consumers at Albertsons stores, where prices are currently 10-12% higher than at Kroger stores. However, economic justice advocates and the FTC counter that the merger would actually harm competition. Without competition between Kroger and Albertsons, the combined entity would have the power to dominate the market and engage in practices like price gouging.
Former U.S. Labor Secretary Robert Reich has been a vocal critic of the merger, describing it as “corporate greed at its absolute worst.” Reich and other progressives argue that the merger would eliminate head-to-head competition, allowing Kroger to control pricing and wage policies across a significant portion of the grocery market. This would likely result in higher prices for consumers and lower wages for workers, further exacerbating income inequality and economic injustice.
The legal battle over the Kroger-Albertsons merger is also a significant test for the FTC under Chair Lina Khan. Khan has been a staunch advocate for stronger antitrust enforcement, particularly in cases of corporate consolidation that threaten to harm workers and consumers. The Roosevelt Institute, a progressive think tank, noted that the trial shows the FTC is “taking the harms of corporate consolidation on workers seriously.”
The outcome of this case could set a precedent for future antitrust cases, with broader implications for corporate mergers across various industries. As the trial unfolds, attention will also turn to a separate lawsuit brought by Washington Attorney General Bob Ferguson, which is scheduled to begin in mid-September in Seattle. This case will further explore the potential harms of the merger and the legal arguments against corporate consolidation.
“The Kroger-Albertsons merger would eliminate head-to-head competition between grocery stores across the country,” said AELP senior legal counsel Lee Hepner. “As grocery store ‘price gouging’ reaches the top of the political ticket, the FTC is intervening to protect consumers and workers from further harm.”
COMMENTS