FTC dismisses lawsuit against PepsiCo that was filed by Biden-era FTC
The Republican-controlled Federal Trade Commission voted Thursday to dismiss a lawsuit against PepsiCo that the previous commission filed in the waning days of the Biden administration.
The lawsuit, filed in January, alleged that PepsiCo was giving unfair price advantages to Walmart at the expense of other vendors and consumers. The lawsuit had relied on the rarely enforced 1936 Robinson-Patman Act, which it said prohibits companies from using promotional incentive payments to favor large customers over smaller ones.
When the lawsuit was filed, Democrat Lina Khan was the FTC's chairwoman, and she was joined in support of the lawsuit by Democratic Commissioners Rebecca Slaughter and Alvaro Bedoya. At the time, Republican Commissioners Andrew Ferguson and Melissa Holyoak dissented.
A few days after the lawsuit was filed, President Donald Trump took office and Khan resigned. Trump fired Bedoya and Slaughter in March. Bedoya and Slaughter have sued the Trump administration, saying their removal was illegal.
Ferguson, who is now the chairman of the FTC, said Thursday that the PepsiCo lawsuit was a 'dubious partisan stunt' and FTC staff had more important work to do.
Monday Mornings
The latest local business news and a lookahead to the coming week.
'The Biden-Harris FTC rushed to authorize this case just three days before President Trump's inauguration in a nakedly political effort to commit this administration to pursuing little more than a hunch that Pepsi had violated the law,' Ferguson said in a statement.
A message seeking comment was left Thursday with PepsiCo. At the time of the lawsuit, the Purchase, New York-based company said it didn't offer discounts or promotional support to some customers but not others.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
CTV News
an hour ago
- CTV News
Musk deletes post claiming Trump ‘in the Epstein files'
Elon Musk listens as U.S. President Donald Trump speaks during a news conference in the Oval Office of the White House, Friday, May 30, 2025, in Washington. (AP Photo/Evan Vucci) Tech billionaire Elon Musk has deleted an explosive allegation linking Donald Trump with disgraced financier Jeffrey Epstein that he posted on social media during a vicious public fallout with the U.S. president this week. Musk -- who exited his role as a top White House advisor just last week -- alleged on Thursday that the Republican leader is featured in secret government files on former associates of Epstein, who died by suicide in 2019 while he faced sex trafficking charges. The Trump administration has acknowledged it is reviewing tens of thousands of documents, videos and investigative material that his 'MAGA' movement says will unmask public figures complicit in Epstein's crimes. 'Time to drop the really big bomb: (Trump) is in the Epstein files,' Musk posted on his social media platform, X as his growing feud with the president boiled over into a spectacularly public row on Thursday. 'That is the real reason they have not been made public.' Musk did not reveal which files he was talking about and offered no evidence for his claim. He initially doubled down on the claim, writing in a follow-up message: 'Mark this post for the future. The truth will come out.' However, he appeared to have deleted both tweets by Saturday morning. Supporters on the conspiratorial end of Trump's 'Make America Great Again' base allege that Epstein's associates had their roles in his crimes covered up by government officials and others. They point the finger at Democrats and Hollywood celebrities, although not at Trump himself. No official source has ever confirmed that the president appears in any of the material. Trump knew and socialized with Epstein but has denied spending time on Little Saint James, the private redoubt in the U.S. Virgin Islands where prosecutors alleged Epstein trafficked underage girls for sex. 'Terrific guy,' Trump, who was Epstein's neighbor in both Florida and New York, said in an early 2000s profile of the financier. 'He's a lot of fun to be with. It is even said that he likes beautiful women as much as I do, and many of them are on the younger side.' Just last week Trump gave Musk a glowing send-off as he left his cost-cutting role at the so-called U.S. Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE). But their relationship imploded within days as Musk described as an 'abomination' a spending bill that, if passed by Congress, could define Trump's second term in office. Trump hit back in an Oval Office diatribe and from there the row detonated, leaving Washington and riveted social media users alike stunned by the blistering break-up between the world's richest person and the world's most powerful. With real political and economic risks to their row, both then appeared to inch back from the brink on Friday, but the White House denied reports they would talk. Agence France-Presse
Winnipeg Free Press
an hour ago
- Winnipeg Free Press
Trump's tariffs could pay for his tax cuts — but it likely wouldn't be much of a bargain
WASHINGTON (AP) — The tax cuts in President Donald Trump's One Big Beautiful Bill Act would likely gouge a hole in the federal budget. The president has a patch handy, though: his sweeping import taxes — tariffs. The Congressional Budget Office, the government's nonpartisan arbiter of tax and spending matters, says the One Big Beautiful Bill, passed by the House last month and now under consideration in the Senate, would increase federal budget deficits by $2.4 trillion over the next decade. That is because its tax cuts would drain the government's coffers faster than its spending cuts would save money. By bringing in revenue for the Treasury, on the other hand, the tariffs that Trump announced through May 13 — including his so-called reciprocal levies of up to 50% on countries with which the United States has a trade deficit — would offset the budget impact of the tax-cut bill and reduce deficits over the next decade by $2.5 trillion. So it's basically a wash. That's the budget math anyway. The real answer is more complicated. Actually using tariffs to finance a big chunk of the federal government would be a painful and perilous undertaking, budget wonks say. 'It's a very dangerous way to try to raise revenue,' said Kent Smetters of the University of Pennsylvania's Penn Wharton Budget Model, who served in President George W. Bush's Treasury Department. Trump has long advocated tariffs as an economic elixir. He says they can protect American industries, bring factories back to the United States, give him leverage to win concessions over foreign governments — and raise a lot of money. He's even suggested that they could replace the federal income tax, which now brings in about half of federal revenue. 'It's possible we'll do a complete tax cut,'' he told reporters in April. 'I think the tariffs will be enough to cut all of the income tax.'' Economists and budget analysts do not share the president's enthusiasm for using tariffs to finance the government or to replace other taxes. 'It's a really bad trade,'' said Erica York, the Tax Foundation's vice president of federal tax policy. 'It's perhaps the dumbest tax reform you could design.'' For one thing, Trump's tariffs are an unstable source of revenue. He bypassed Congress and imposed his biggest import tax hikes through executive orders. That means a future president could simply reverse them. 'Or political whims in Congress could change, and they could decide, 'Hey, we're going revoke this authority because we don't think it's a good thing that the president can just unilaterally impose a $2 trillion tax hike,' '' York said. Or the courts could kill his tariffs before Congress or future presidents do. A federal court in New York has already struck down the centerpiece of his tariff program — the reciprocal and other levies he announced on what he called 'Liberation Day'' April 2 — saying he'd overstepped his authority. An appeals court has allowed the government to keep collecting the levies while the legal challenge winds its way through the court system. Economists also say that tariffs damage the economy. They are a tax on foreign products, paid by importers in the United States and usually passed along to their customers via higher prices. They raise costs for U.S. manufacturers that rely on imported raw materials, components and equipment, making them less competitive than foreign rivals that don't have to pay Trump's tariffs. Tariffs also invite retaliatory taxes on U.S. exports by foreign countries. Indeed, the European Union this week threatened 'countermeasures'' against Trump's unexpected move to raise his tariff on foreign steel and aluminum to 50%. 'You're not just getting the effect of a tax on the U.S. economy,' York said. 'You're also getting the effect of foreign taxes on U.S. exports.'' She said the tariffs will basically wipe out all economic benefits from the One Big Beautiful Bill's tax cuts. Smetters at the Penn Wharton Budget Model said that tariffs also isolate the United States and discourage foreigners from investing in its economy. Foreigners see U.S. Treasurys as a super-safe investment and now own about 30% of the federal government's debt. If they cut back, the federal government would have to pay higher interest rates on Treasury debt to attract a smaller number of potential investors domestically. Monday Mornings The latest local business news and a lookahead to the coming week. Higher borrowing costs and reduced investment would wallop the economy, making tariffs the most economically destructive tax available, Smetters said — more than twice as costly in reduced economic growth and wages as what he sees as the next-most damaging: the tax on corporate earnings. Tariffs also hit the poor hardest. They end up being a tax on consumers, and the poor spend more of their income than wealthier people do. Even without the tariffs, the One Big Beautiful Bill slams the poorest because it makes deep cuts to federal food programs and to Medicaid, which provides health care to low-income Americans. After the bill's tax and spending cuts, an analysis by the Penn Wharton Budget Model found, the poorest fifth of American households earning less than $17,000 a year would see their incomes drop by $820 next year. The richest 0.1% earning more than $4.3 million a year would come out ahead by $390,070 in 2026. 'If you layer a regressive tax increase like tariffs on top of that, you make a lot of low- and middle-income households substantially worse off,'' said the Tax Foundation's York. Overall, she said, tariffs are 'a very unreliable source of revenue for the legal reasons, the political reasons as well as the economic reasons. They're a very, very inefficient way to raise revenue. If you raise a dollar of a revenue with tariffs, that's going to cause a lot more economic harm than raising revenue any other way.''
CTV News
an hour ago
- CTV News
A top Taliban official offers amnesty to Afghans who fled the country and urges them to return
A Taliban fighter stands guard near the Shah-Do Shamshira Mosque as people attend the Eid al-Adha prayer in Kabul, Afghanistan, Saturday, June 7, 2025. (AP Photo/Ebrahim Noroozi) A top Taliban official said on Saturday that all Afghans who fled the country after the collapse of the former Western-backed government are free to return home, promising they would not be harmed if they come back. Taliban Prime Minister Mohammad Hassan Akhund made the amnesty offer in his message for the Islamic holiday of Eid al-Adha, also known as the 'Feast of Sacrifice.' The offer comes days after U.S. President Donald Trump announced a sweeping travel ban on 12 countries, including Afghanistan. The measure largely bars Afghans hoping to resettle in the United States permanently as well as those hoping to go to the U.S. temporarily, such as for university study. Trump also suspended a core refugee program in January, all but ending support for Afghans who had allied with the U.S. and leaving tens of thousands of them stranded. Afghans in neighboring Pakistan who are awaiting resettlement are also dealing with a deportation drive by the Islamabad government to get them out of the country. Almost a million have left Pakistan since October 2023 to avoid arrest and expulsion. Akhund's holiday message was posted on the social platform X. 'Afghans who have left the country should return to their homeland,' he said. 'Nobody will harm them.' 'Come back to your ancestral land and live in an atmosphere of peace,' he added, and instructed officials to properly manage services for returning refugees and to ensure they were given shelter and support. He also used the occasion to criticize the media for making what he said were 'false judgements' about Afghanistan's Taliban rulers and their policies. 'We must not allow the torch of the Islamic system to be extinguished,' he said. 'The media should avoid false judgments and should not minimize the accomplishments of the system. While challenges exist, we must remain vigilant.' The Taliban swept into the capital Kabul and seized most of Afghanistan in a blitz in mid-August 2021 as the U.S. and NATO forces were in the last weeks of their pullout from the country after 20 years of war. The offensive prompted a mass exodus, with tens of thousands of Afghans thronging the airport in chaotic scenes, hoping for a flight out on the U.S. military airlift. People also fled across the border, to neighboring Iran and Pakistan. Among those escaping the new Taliban rulers were also former government officials, journalists, activists, those who had helped the U.S. during its campaign against the Taliban. The Associated Press
