Cantwell Presses Trump FTC on Big Grocery Chains’ Anti-Competitive Practices that Stifle Competition, Leave Local Communities with Fewer Choices & Consumers with Higher Costs

Cantwell Presses Trump FTC on Big Grocery Chains' Anti-Competitive Practices that Stifle Competition, Leave Local Communities with Fewer Choices & Consumers with Higher Costs

Grocery retailers use "restrictive covenants" and sale agreements to keep competitors out of local markets; State of Washington is the first state to ban restrictive covenants limiting access to food or medicine; Birchwood neighborhood in Bellingham, WA became a food desert after an Albertsons closed; deed restriction would have prevented a new grocery store from moving in for 20 years

WASHINGTON, D.C. - U.S. Senator Maria Cantwell (D-WA), Ranking Member of the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation and senior member of the Finance Committee, sent a letter to Chairman of the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) Andrew Ferguson regarding the use of "restrictive covenants" by grocery retailers to keep competitors out of local markets, leaving communities with fewer options and driving up grocery prices for consumers. The letter, which was also signed by U.S. Senators Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY), Ron Wyden (D-OR), and Cory Booker (D-NJ), follows an April 15 hearing where Sen. Cantwell called on the FTC to do more to combat skyrocketing grocery prices and protect consumers from these anti-competitive practices.

"The 2016 closure of an Albertsons grocery store created a food desert in the Birchwood neighborhood of Bellingham, Washington," Sen. Cantwell and her colleagues wrote. "Yet when Albertsons later sold the property in 2018, it included a deed restriction that would have prevented a grocery store from operating in the space until 2038. Albertsons ultimately removed the deed restriction after the Washington Attorney General opened an investigation into whether Albertsons had violated Washington's antitrust laws."

At an April 15 hearing, during which Sen. Cantwell focused on the affordability crisis facing families, Sen. Cantwell asked Ferguson whether the FTC considers restrictive covenants used by grocery chains to keep out competitors to be an unfair method of competition. Restrictive covenants are terms written in property sale, purchase, or lease agreements that restrict the future use of a property. Earlier this year, the State of Washington became the first state to ban restrictive covenants that prevent or limit a property from being used by a grocery store or pharmacy.

"Lower income communities are more vulnerable to these closures and the reduction of competition," their letter continued. "A recent report from the Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta found that '[p]oorer, more concentrated markets experience larger and more persistent food price shocks, amplifying the burden on low-income households.' That burden may be growing as the latest round of tariffs and the ongoing conflict in Iran threaten further spikes in grocery prices."

"Americans are struggling with rising prices, and anti-competitive corporate lawfare should not be a reason costs stay high," the senators wrote.

The letter is below and HERE.

May 1, 2026

The Honorable Andrew Ferguson

Chair

Federal Trade Commission

600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW

Washington, DC 20580

Dear Chair Ferguson:

For decades, large retailers have used anti-competitive restrictive covenants-written into property sale, purchase, and lease agreements-to block competitors' access to a local market. These restrictive covenants prohibit competitors from purchasing or leasing commercial real estate. As a result, storefronts are left empty, small businesses are boxed out from opening in certain locations, consumers have fewer options, and companies corner regional markets and drive-up prices.

Large retailers' use of restrictive covenants has been especially prevalent in the grocery industry. Significant square footage and parking requirements limit the number of suitable properties available in a given area for grocers, especially in developed or urban areas, and the anti-competitive effects of restrictive covenants only exacerbate these constraints. The impact of these anti-competitive covenants on consumers is further heightened in the grocery industry because grocery store competition is local. In the FTC's recent and successful challenge of the Kroger-Albertsons merger, data "showed that on average, more than seventy percent of defendants' sales are drawn from within five miles of a store," which the district court found "support[ed] the drawing of small, local geographic markets." Fed. Trade Comm'n v. Kroger Co., No. 3:24-cv-00347, 2024 WL 5053016, at *23 (D. Or. Dec. 10, 2024).

Across the country, anti-competitive restrictive covenants have shut out grocers from operating in locations where consumers would have otherwise frequented their stores and benefited from their presence in the community. In Woonsocket, Rhode Island, only one supermarket services roughly 45,000 people due to anti-competitive restrictive covenants set by competitors. Among those stores with restrictive covenants was a Walmart store that closed in 2011. For six years, Walmart prevented competitors from moving into the location, while the property sat vacant. When Walmart finally sold the building in 2017, it included a "25-year restrictive covenant prohibiting the property from being used for a grocery store or supermarket." The restrictive covenant also prohibits the property from being used for "a wholesale club operation similar to that of Sam's Club."

On the West Coast, the 2016 closure of an Albertsons grocery store created a food desert in the Birchwood neighborhood of Bellingham, Washington. Yet when Albertsons later sold the property in 2018, it included a deed restriction that would have prevented a grocery store from operating in the space until 2038. Albertsons ultimately removed the deed restriction after the Washington Attorney General opened an investigation into whether Albertsons had violated Washington's antitrust laws.

When grocers leave a community, anti-competitive restrictive covenants further cement the harm caused by the initial loss of the store, leaving consumers without ready access to food or more exposed to high food prices with fewer choices to seek better deals. Additionally, when a grocery store closes, communities often lose a neighborhood pharmacy, and anti-competitive restrictive covenants can prolong pharmacy deserts.

Lower income communities are more vulnerable to these closures and the reduction of competition. A recent report from the Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta found that "[p]oorer, more concentrated markets experience larger and more persistent food price shocks, amplifying the burden on low-income households." That burden may be growing as the latest round of tariffs and the ongoing conflict in Iran threaten further spikes in grocery prices.

Americans are struggling with rising prices, and anti-competitive corporate lawfare should not be a reason costs stay high. Given the ongoing impacts of anti-competitive restrictive covenants on communities across the country, please provide answers to the following questions:

1. Does the FTC consider covenants restricting the use of land by competitors an unfair method of competition?
2. Is the FTC able to regulate anti-competitive restrictive covenants through existing authorities?
3. Has the FTC collected data on the use of anti-competitive restrictive covenants?
4. 1. If so:
   1. Has the FTC collected data on the impact of anti-competitive restrictive covenants on consumer prices, including food prices?
   2. Has the FTC collected data on the impact of anti-competitive restrictive covenants on consumers' access to food and medicine?
   3. Has the FTC collected data regarding the impact of anti-competitive restrictive covenants by large grocery chains on market share?
   4. Has the FTC collected data on the impacts of anti-restrictive covenants on small businesses?

I ask that you respond to these questions by no later than May 15, 2026. I look forward to your response.

Sincerely,