FTC closes Gildan–S&S pricing investigation after agreement change

The Federal Trade Commission says it has closed an investigation involving Gildan and wholesale T-shirt distributor S&S after changes to their agreement. The agency announced the development on October 8, describing the revision as a protection against pricing arrangements that could disadvantage competing businesses. According to the FTC, the investigation concerned a contract provision restricting Gildan from offering certain pricing and discounts available to S&S to its competitors. The agency examined potential Robinson-Patman Act issues and said the companies modified the agreement. A company letter dated October 7 supplies Gildan’s account. Addressed to FTC Chairman Andrew N. Ferguson, the letter says a term in its 2025 sales incentive agreement with S&S had restricted certain pricing and discounts to other North American wholesale distributors. Gildan says the term was removed and the revised agreement preserves its discretion to set prices and offer partnership support to other distributors. The letter also draws an explicit limit around the change. Gildan says neither the letter nor its decision to amend the agreement constitutes an admission of liability or wrongdoing. It maintains that the program was consistent with applicable law and disputes that the removed term harmed competition. Those positions should be read alongside, rather than replaced by, the agency’s characterization. The confirmed development is the agreement’s amendment and the closure described by the FTC. The documents do not justify reporting a court judgment of liability. For small apparel businesses, the announcement concerns an upstream commercial relationship. It does not establish that every purchaser will receive the same price or that a particular shop’s costs have already fallen. The public materials describe a change in the agreement, not measured retail outcomes. That distinction matters when a business uses the news to assess its purchasing arrangements. A revised provision may change what a supplier is free to offer without independently establishing the terms any particular buyer will obtain. The outcome for a buyer depends on its actual commercial relationship. The FTC links the matter with its wider pricing-enforcement work. Readers should nevertheless retain the boundaries of this case: the named parties, the provision described, the revision and the company’s stated position. The FTC’s announcement specifies the legal questions involved. The agency said it investigated Gildan for potential violations of Section 2(a) of the Robinson-Patman Act, which prohibits certain price discrimination by sellers, and investigated whether S&S violated Section 2(f), which prohibits knowingly inducing or receiving prohibited price discrimination. Those were the subjects of the inquiry; the closure of the investigation is not a finding that either provision was violated. The agency also quoted the revised contract language directly. The amended agreement now provides: “Nothing in this Agreement restricts or restrains Gildan’s discretion to set prices or offer partnership support to any other North American wholesale distributor.” The FTC said it closed the investigation given the changes the companies implemented, and it posted Gildan’s letter confirming the amendment. Daniel Guarnera, director of the FTC’s Bureau of Competition, framed the matter in broader terms. “Congress has prohibited unfair and discriminatory pricing practices that favor big businesses and box out small businesses, which are the engine of the American economy,” he said, adding that the agency “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 FTC said the matter builds on a Robinson-Patman settlement entered the previous week with Southern Glazer’s Wine and Spirits, which it described as the largest U.S. distributor of wine and spirits. Those statements describe the agency’s enforcement priorities; Gildan’s letter, as noted, disputes that the removed term harmed competition. The public company letter makes those boundaries easier to examine. It records both the change and the denial of wrongdoing, allowing readers to distinguish an agency’s enforcement account from the affected company’s response. Future claims about effects on prices would require evidence beyond these documents.