Alina Selyuk

They have thousands of stores, and they knew this merger would be a tough sell for regulators. And indeed, the Federal Trade Commission sued them, so did several states, asking courts to block the merger. Overall, the process has been very expensive and a pretty unpopular deal. It's been criticized by Democrats and Republicans.

They have thousands of stores, and they knew this merger would be a tough sell for regulators. And indeed, the Federal Trade Commission sued them, so did several states, asking courts to block the merger. Overall, the process has been very expensive and a pretty unpopular deal. It's been criticized by Democrats and Republicans.

And, you know, shoppers use it to air grievances about expensive groceries.

And, you know, shoppers use it to air grievances about expensive groceries.

And, you know, shoppers use it to air grievances about expensive groceries.

So government lawyers argued Kroger and Albertsons often compete head to head, that they keep tabs on each other's prices, store hours, quality of products. And so putting two rivals under one roof would leave shoppers worse off, fewer choices, higher prices.

So government lawyers argued Kroger and Albertsons often compete head to head, that they keep tabs on each other's prices, store hours, quality of products. And so putting two rivals under one roof would leave shoppers worse off, fewer choices, higher prices.

So government lawyers argued Kroger and Albertsons often compete head to head, that they keep tabs on each other's prices, store hours, quality of products. And so putting two rivals under one roof would leave shoppers worse off, fewer choices, higher prices.

Kroger and Albertsons made the case that the merger was a matter of survival, that their biggest rivals are not conventional supermarkets like themselves, but giants like Walmart, Costco, Amazon. They said only together could they compete with these companies long term. And they even argued that together they would have had more power to lower prices for shoppers.

Kroger and Albertsons made the case that the merger was a matter of survival, that their biggest rivals are not conventional supermarkets like themselves, but giants like Walmart, Costco, Amazon. They said only together could they compete with these companies long term. And they even argued that together they would have had more power to lower prices for shoppers.

Kroger and Albertsons made the case that the merger was a matter of survival, that their biggest rivals are not conventional supermarkets like themselves, but giants like Walmart, Costco, Amazon. They said only together could they compete with these companies long term. And they even argued that together they would have had more power to lower prices for shoppers.

No, they did not. The U.S. district judge wrote essentially that she understood that competition with Walmart was real. It was tough, but it could not justify an otherwise illegal merger. And the judges also did not buy the company's plan to create essentially a new rival for themselves. They had planned to sell stores in markets where they overlap, and the judges did not approve of that.

No, they did not. The U.S. district judge wrote essentially that she understood that competition with Walmart was real. It was tough, but it could not justify an otherwise illegal merger. And the judges also did not buy the company's plan to create essentially a new rival for themselves. They had planned to sell stores in markets where they overlap, and the judges did not approve of that.

No, they did not. The U.S. district judge wrote essentially that she understood that competition with Walmart was real. It was tough, but it could not justify an otherwise illegal merger. And the judges also did not buy the company's plan to create essentially a new rival for themselves. They had planned to sell stores in markets where they overlap, and the judges did not approve of that.

Well, you know, given how much of a knockout, drag out legal fight it has been so far, I feel like we could be in for a pretty bitter litigation now between the two of them. There is money at stake, which is the merger breakup fee. And Albertsons was the company getting acquired. So there is a chance that Albertsons puts itself back on the block again.

Well, you know, given how much of a knockout, drag out legal fight it has been so far, I feel like we could be in for a pretty bitter litigation now between the two of them. There is money at stake, which is the merger breakup fee. And Albertsons was the company getting acquired. So there is a chance that Albertsons puts itself back on the block again.

Well, you know, given how much of a knockout, drag out legal fight it has been so far, I feel like we could be in for a pretty bitter litigation now between the two of them. There is money at stake, which is the merger breakup fee. And Albertsons was the company getting acquired. So there is a chance that Albertsons puts itself back on the block again.

They might try to find someone else to buy it. Now, as far as shoppers are concerned, for now, they can keep going back to their familiar grocery stores.

They might try to find someone else to buy it. Now, as far as shoppers are concerned, for now, they can keep going back to their familiar grocery stores.

They might try to find someone else to buy it. Now, as far as shoppers are concerned, for now, they can keep going back to their familiar grocery stores.