Pepsi, Walmart Accused of Jacking Up Soda Prices in 10-Year Scheme

Class Action Targets Decade of Alleged Price Fixing

If you bought a Pepsi at Target, Walgreens, or your local grocery store anytime in the last ten years, you may have paid more than you should have.

A new class action lawsuit filed in December 2025 accuses PepsiCo and Walmart of running a price-fixing scheme that kept soda cheap at Walmart while pushing prices higher at every other store in America.

The lawsuit follows an earlier government case that got buried before anyone could see the evidence, and what came out when a judge unsealed those documents is raising serious questions about how two of the biggest names in retail really do business.

Same Product, Very Different Prices

The lawsuit lays out specific price comparisons that show how much shoppers paid depending on where they bought their Pepsi products.

A case of Pepsi cost $8.27 at Walmart but $11. 49 at Walgreens. A dozen 12-ounce cans at Walmart was priced at $8. 27, while it was $8.39 at Target and $8. 99 at Wegmans.

As of July 2025, the price of a two-liter Pepsi at a Massachusetts Walmart was up to 39 percent less than what a consumer would pay for the same drink at a nearby Walgreens, and around 40 percent cheaper than the listed price at CVS and 7-Eleven.

The FTC Case That Disappeared

The Federal Trade Commission filed a Robinson-Patman Act lawsuit against PepsiCo in January 2025, alleging the company violated federal law by providing preferential pricing to a favored customer.

The original complaint was heavily redacted, hiding the identity of the retailer involved. The FTC voted to dismiss the lawsuit without prejudice on May 22, 2025.

FTC Chairman Andrew Ferguson called the case a “nakedly political effort” and a “legally dubious partisan stunt” rushed through just days before President Trump’s inauguration.

A Judge Orders the Secrets Released

The Institute for Local Self-Reliance intervened after the dismissal and moved to unseal the heavily redacted complaint, arguing that the public interest in understanding these allegations far outweighed PepsiCo’s desire for secrecy.

In December 2025, Judge Jesse M. Furman ruled that the public has a constitutional right to access the FTC’s allegations.

The unsealed filing identifies Walmart as the beneficiary of the alleged violations after the retailer’s name had been kept secret for months.

Pepsi Tracked Rivals to Protect Walmart

The unsealed documents paint a detailed picture of how the alleged scheme worked.

For years, Pepsi monitored the market on Walmart’s behalf, and when it would see other retailers dropping prices, it would respond to maintain the price gap.

According to the FTC’s complaint, PepsiCo tracked prices across the retail economy to ensure no retailer offered prices for Pepsi products as low or lower than Walmart’s price.

Pepsi’s internal communications reportedly compared prices at Walmart versus what they called “ROM,” meaning “rest of market.”

Stores That Competed Got Punished

When other retailers tried to discount Pepsi products to better compete with Walmart, they allegedly faced consequences.

Pepsi kept logs on stores who would discount their products, nicknaming them “offenders” of the price gap.

Food Lion was punished for being the “worst offender” of Pepsi’s pro-Walmart approach, and Pepsi enacted a multiyear strategy aimed at raising wholesale costs on the chain.

Sometimes this meant reducing or eliminating promotional payments for competitors and increasing their wholesale prices.

Walmart Holds Enormous Power Over Pepsi

The relationship between these two companies helps explain why Pepsi would allegedly go to such lengths to keep Walmart happy.

Walmart is a key partner, accounting for between 20 and 25 percent of the grocery market.

Walmart is Pepsi’s largest customer, and Pepsi has disclosed it would suffer a “material adverse effect” if it lost the retailer’s business.

A 1936 Law Built to Stop This

The legal theory behind both the FTC case and the class action dates back to the Great Depression.

The Robinson-Patman Act of 1936 was designed to protect small retail shops against competition from chain stores by preventing suppliers from giving goods to preferred customers at a reduced price.

The growth of chain stores such as A&P and Sears led many to fear that retail chains presented a threat to smaller, independent retailers because they could negotiate deals that smaller stores could never get.

When Enforcement Stopped, Small Grocers Collapsed

The Robinson-Patman Act worked for decades, but that changed in the 1980s.

In the 1980s, the Reagan administration stopped enforcing the law, and that move tipped the retail market in favor of the largest chains. Since 1982, the market share of independent retailers has fallen from 53 percent to 22 percent.

Walmart was the first to fully grasp the implications of the new legal terrain and soon became notorious for aggressively strong-arming suppliers, a strategy that fueled its rapid expansion.

Pepsi Raised Prices While Profits Soared

The alleged price-fixing scheme operated during a period when PepsiCo was already raising prices aggressively across the board.

Pepsi was a key player in the post-Covid greedflation episode, with CFO Hugh Johnston saying in 2022 that the company was capable of taking whatever pricing they needed.

In 2023, PepsiCo raked in $91 billion in net revenue, a 35 percent increase over prepandemic income, and the company poured $7.7 billion into repurchasing stock and issuing dividends.

During 2022 and 2023, Pepsi raised prices by double digits for seven consecutive quarters.

Both Companies Say Theyre Innocent

PepsiCo and Walmart have denied all the allegations and say they plan to fight the lawsuit.

PepsiCo said the company continues to operate in compliance with applicable laws and remains committed to providing all customers with fair, competitive, and non-discriminatory pricing.

Walmart responded by saying it remains committed to negotiating on behalf of our customers so we can deliver value and everyday low prices.

A PepsiCo spokesperson called the lawsuit filled with inaccuracies and unsubstantiated allegations, including mischaracterizations of their business dealings.

Millions of Americans Could Be Eligible

The lawsuit seeks to represent a nationwide class of consumers who bought Pepsi soft drink products from any retailer other than Walmart from 2015 until the present.

That potentially includes millions of Americans who bought Pepsi, Mountain Dew, Gatorade, Aquafina, or any other Pepsi beverage from a grocery store, convenience store, or pharmacy.

If the plaintiffs prevail, they may be entitled to treble damages, which is three times the amount of damages awarded.

The case will now move forward to determine whether it can proceed as a class action.

Explore Business History at the Smithsonian

The National Museum of American History in Washington, D.C. features the American Enterprise exhibition, which traces more than 300 years of business innovation, competition, and consumer culture in the United States.

The museum sits on the National Mall at 14th Street and Constitution Avenue NW. Admission is free and the museum is open daily from 10 a.m. to 5:30 p.m., with extended hours during peak seasons.

The American Enterprise exhibit explores how companies have shaped the economy and how government policies like antitrust laws have responded to corporate power.

This article was created with AI assistance and human editing.

Read more from this brand:

• Colorado’s AI Law Bans Discrimination. The White House Calls It Unconstitutional.
• Trump Cancels Biden-Era Plan to Make Airlines Pay for Delayed Flights
• Texas Drew a Line in the Sand on AI Discrimination – It Starts January 1