The Federal Trade Commission announced this week that apparel suppliers Gildan Activewear and S&S have made changes to a partnership agreement regarding T-shirt pricing.
- Gildan moved up two spots in the 2026 PPAI 100 to the No. 5 supplier after completing its $2.2 billion acquisition of Hanesbrands in late 2025 and entering an exclusive wholesale agreement for its American Apparel brand with S&S, PPAI 100’s No. 2 supplier.
The FTC opened its investigation into the pair of apparel suppliers under the Robinson-Patman Act, an antitrust law from 1936 that prohibits suppliers from engaging in anticompetitive price discrimination, after becoming aware that the agreement prohibited Gildan from also offering certain pricing and discounts given to S&S to its competitors.
- The FTC’s web page about price discrimination says: A seller charging competing buyers different prices for the same “commodity” or discriminating in the provision of “allowances” … may give favored customers an unfair advantage in the market that has nothing to do with their superior efficiency.
Gildan and S&S have modified their agreement in response to the investigation. The new terms ensure Gildan’s independent discretion to set prices with “any other North American wholesale distributor,” as stated in a letter from Gildan to FTC Chairman Andrew Ferguson. The Montreal-based company also published the following statement on its website:
- The Company remains confident that its sales incentive programs with its customers, including its agreement with this specific distributor, are consistent with all applicable laws and regulations, including the Robinson-Patman Act.
Likewise, a statement from S&S acknowledged the FTC investigation and that “the matter has now been closed with no finding of a violation by S&S,” as reported by Matthew Perlman for Law360.
Perlman also notes that the investigation and resulting changes a highlight recent revival of Robinson-Patman Act enforcement efforts by the agency, close on the heels of its first RPA settlement in decades just last week in a case involving an alcohol distributor found to be charging smaller stores more than large retailers.
