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.

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 FTC is suing PepsiCo for allegedly rigging the market by offering “unfair pricing advantages” that can contribute to inflation.

The Robinson-Patman Act was passed in 1936, but the federal government stopped enforcing it during the deregulation of the 1980s. The FTC resumed its enforcement in December when it sued Southern Glazer’s, the largest U.S. distributor of wine and spirits.

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

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.

The Federal Trade Commission sued PepsiCo on Friday for offering preferential pricing to a large retailer, whom a source familiar with the matter confirmed was Walmart.

This month it’s launching Pepsi Wild Cherry Cream. Pepsi is jumping on the current cherry craze, a fad we were definitely/totally/for sure aware of before the soda giant told us about it.

Nicolette is a lifestyle writer based in Brooklyn, NY. Enthusiastic and ambitious, she's excited to tackle any story — from beauty trends to hard-hitting breaking news, Nicolette brings ...

The Federal Trade Commission on Friday sued PepsiCo for allegedly engaging in illegal price discrimination with a large retailer. The commission alleges that the retailer, whose name was redacted in the statement from commissioners,