Surging grocery prices in focus as US tries to stop Kroger deal
Recasts with surging grocery prices, adds details in paragraphs 1, 3 and 8-9
FTC and US states argue merger will harm competition and raise prices
Kroger and Albertsons claim merger needed to compete with Walmart, Amazon
Kroger pledges $1 billion in price cuts, plans to sell 579 stores if deal proceeds
By Deborah Bloom, Jody Godoy
PORTLAND, Oregon, Aug 26 (Reuters) -The U.S. Federal Trade Commission argued in federal court on Monday that Kroger's KR.N $25 billion merger with rival grocer Albertsons ACI.N is bad for shoppers in a case that highlights growing alarm over surging grocery prices.
The FTC and several states went to trial in Portland, Oregon, to block the deal, saying it would mean higher prices for consumers and less bargaining power for unionized grocery workers.
FTC Chief Trial Counsel Susan Musser told U.S. District Judge Adrienne Nelson during opening statements in a packed courtroom that it would result in Kroger "swallowing" Albertsons.
"Stopping this multibillion-dollar deal will keep in place the vigorous competition that acts as a check on rising grocery prices and spurs improvements in quality and innovation," she said.
Kroger attorney Matthew Wolf said in an opening statement that the merger would immediately lower some prices for shoppers at Albertsons, where prices are now 10-12% higher than at Kroger stores.
The FTC's bid to bring down prices by blocking the deal shows "they neither understand the industry nor the parties within it," Wolf said.
The merger is necessary, said Wolf, in order for the stores to competewith WalmartWMT.N, the largest grocery retailer in the U.S., bulk shopping mainstay Costco COST.O and Amazon.com AMZN.O, which owns Whole Foods.
Albertsons' lawyer Enu Mainigi said that Walmart is able to sell certain products at a price lower than the grocery store chain can buy them wholesale, and that a tie-up with Kroger gives Albertsons the best chance to survive.
"It could mean layoffs. It could include closing stores. It may include exiting certain markets altogether. These are the kind of things that are on the table if the merger does not go through," she said.
The case is a high-profile piece of the Biden administration's push to lower prices for consumers, and comes as high grocery bills take prominence in the U.S. presidential race.
It is also a key test of FTC Chair Lina Khan's initiative to use antitrust law to boost wages and mobility for workers.
Kroger attorney Wolf said there is no difference between union wages at Kroger stores that are located near Albertsons stores and those that are not.
The FTC's Musser said unionized grocery workers secure better pay and benefits by striking at one store and sending customers to a rival. A merger between Kroger and Albertsons would lessen the severity of that threat, she said.
The FTC alleges the merger would harm workers in dozens of labor markets.
"We don't believe the company's promise that they are doing this for competition," said Kim Cordova, president of the United Food and Commercial Workers International Union local in Colorado and Wyoming.
The trial is expected to last around three weeks and feature evidence about competition in the grocery industry.
Kroger and Albertsons say the lawsuit's focus on traditional supermarkets ignores that consumers typically shop for food at a variety of locations including big-box stores like Target TGT.N and dollar stores such as Dollar Tree DLTR.O.
Kroger has said it will sell 579 of the approximately 5,000 stores it would own if the deal goes through. Part of the trial will focus on whether buyer C&S Wholesale Grocers can successfully run them.
Kroger has also pledged to lower grocery prices by $1 billion after the merger.
Retailers use multiple levers to lower prices, including negotiating better deals with suppliers, investing in automation in the supply chain or changing the way they label and package products.
Although Kroger declined to provide specifics, a source familiar with the matter indicated that the reductions will likely focus on essential and high-demand items first.
Musser said the investment represents only 0.5% of Kroger and Albertsons' combined total revenue.
Nelson is considering whether to pause the deal while an FTC in-house judge examines how it would impact competition.
Such reviews can take years, and companies often abandon paused deals rather than complete the process.
Arizona, California, Illinois, Maryland, Nevada, New Mexico, Oregon, Wyoming and the District of Columbia have sued alongside the FTC.
Washington and Colorado have filed their own lawsuits to block the merger, which are scheduled to go to trial after the FTC's case.
Kroger case tests FTC Chair Khan's bid to protect workers ID:nL1N3KA0OO
Reporting by Jody Godoy and Siddharth Cavale in New York, and Deborah Bloom in Portland, Oregon; Editing by Matthew Lewis
Related Assets
Latest News
Disclaimer: The XM Group entities provide execution-only service and access to our Online Trading Facility, permitting a person to view and/or use the content available on or via the website, is not intended to change or expand on this, nor does it change or expand on this. Such access and use are always subject to: (i) Terms and Conditions; (ii) Risk Warnings; and (iii) Full Disclaimer. Such content is therefore provided as no more than general information. Particularly, please be aware that the contents of our Online Trading Facility are neither a solicitation, nor an offer to enter any transactions on the financial markets. Trading on any financial market involves a significant level of risk to your capital.
All material published on our Online Trading Facility is intended for educational/informational purposes only, and does not contain – nor should it be considered as containing – financial, investment tax or trading advice and recommendations; or a record of our trading prices; or an offer of, or solicitation for, a transaction in any financial instruments; or unsolicited financial promotions to you.
Any third-party content, as well as content prepared by XM, such as: opinions, news, research, analyses, prices and other information or links to third-party sites contained on this website are provided on an “as-is” basis, as general market commentary, and do not constitute investment advice. To the extent that any content is construed as investment research, you must note and accept that the content was not intended to and has not been prepared in accordance with legal requirements designed to promote the independence of investment research and as such, it would be considered as marketing communication under the relevant laws and regulations. Please ensure that you have read and understood our Notification on Non-Independent Investment. Research and Risk Warning concerning the foregoing information, which can be accessed here.
