FTC got Gildan and S&S to strike a clause that boxed rival distributors out of discounts

On October 8, 2026, the Federal Trade Commission announced it had secured changes to the partnership agreement between T-shirt manufacturer Gildan Activewear SRL and major wholesale distributor S&S Holdings LLC. The FTC opened the probe after learning that S&S's contract with Gildan prohibited Gildan from offering certain pricing and discounts given to S&S to S&S's competitors, and examined Gildan under the act's seller provision (Section 2(a)) and S&S under the buyer provision against knowingly inducing prohibited price discrimination (Section 2(f)).

In response, Gildan and S&S modified their agreement, which now reads: 'Nothing in this Agreement restricts or restrains Gildan's discretion to set prices or offer partnership support to any other North American wholesale distributor.' With the changes in place, the FTC closed its investigation, and Gildan posted a public letter confirming the amendment. No fine was imposed and no violation adjudicated; the resolution was the conduct change itself.

The matter landed one week after the FTC's settlement with Southern Glazer's Wine and Spirits — the first RPA case resolved by a federal enforcement agency in over 20 years — and signalled the agency's intent to keep reviving the dormant statute. Bureau of Competition Director Daniel Guarnera said the FTC 'will not hesitate to enforce the law when a large, powerful firm insulates itself from competition by forcing sellers to give worse prices to the firm's competitors.'

The pricing-restriction clause struck from the partnership agreement, under a competition investigation resolved without fines or findings.

The contract clause let one dominant wholesale distributor lock in preferential pricing while the manufacturer was barred from offering comparable terms to any rival.

The FTC read the arrangement under the Robinson-Patman Act's core prohibitions: Section 2(a) for the seller's discrimination and Section 2(f) for the buyer's knowing inducement of it.

Small distributors competing against S&S would face worse costs for identical goods, distorting competition on the merits.

The agency accepted the amended contract and Gildan's public confirmation letter as sufficient relief to close the investigation without enforcement.

A buyer big enough to lock rivals out of a supplier's discounts ends up renegotiating with the government — that is what the Robinson-Patman Act was written to catch.

The investigation closed with the clause removed and Gildan's confirmation letter on the public record, establishing the template the FTC used a week after its Southern Glazer's settlement: revive the Robinson-Patman Act through negotiated conduct fixes. No penalties were issued and the FTC made no finding of liability. The agency framed the matter as a warning that pricing policies favoring big buyers at rivals' expense would draw enforcement.