Walmart and Energizer Holdings Inc. were sued by both retailers and shoppers for suspicion of collusion. They have reportedly proposed three antitrust class action suits after accusing the companies of being in cahoots to raise the prices of disposable batteries.
According to Reuters, the complaints against Walmart and Energizer were filed on Friday, April 28. It was stated in the documents that the world’s largest battery maker agreed "under pressure from Walmart" to increase battery prices for wholesale transactions with other retailers.
This scheme allegedly started sometime in 2018, and Energizer also required the retailers not to sell batteries for prices lower than Walmart’s. If they charge less than the Arkansas-headquartered retailer chain firm, the rival retailers risked being cut off by Energizer or given higher wholesale prices.
In the complaint, it was further stated that the setup resulted in higher prices of batteries - from Energizer and Duracell - which are the dominant firms in the disposable battery industry with a combined total of 85% market share. The higher prices are said to be unexplainable amid inflation and changes in demand.
Retailers and consumers are also seeking injunctions to stop Energizer from binding battery sales to pricing. They want Energizer and Walmart to dissolve the effects of their anticompetitive practices and behaviors.
The complainants also said that the battery maker’s market share in the United States also rose to more than 50% from its 40% percentage in 2018. Moreover, they mentioned that a sales representative of Energizer confirmed they had made changes to their pricing after Walmart requested it.
"She admitted that Energizer had adjusted its pricing policies at Walmart's request, telling him, 'This is 1000% about Walmart and wanting the best price,'" they said in the filing.
Meanwhile, the antitrust cases against Energizer and Walmart that were filed in the U.S. District Court, Northern District of California, are Portable Power Inc v Energizer Holdings Inc et al, No. 23-02091; Copeland et al v Energizer Holdings Inc et al, No. 23-02087; and Schuman et al v Energizer Holdings Inc et al, No. 23-02093.
Photo by: Roberto Sorin/Unsplash


China Vanke Seeks Bond Extension Amid Mounting Debt Crisis
Pony.ai, Uber, and Verne Launch Europe's First Commercial Robotaxi Service in Zagreb
SpaceX IPO: Retail Investors to Play Historic Role in Record-Breaking Public Offering
China's Fermented Feed Push: Cutting Soybean Dependence Amid Trade War
U.S. Automakers Push Back Against EU Rules Blocking American Trucks from European Market
Sterling Slides as Dollar Holds Firm Amid U.S.-Iran Tensions
Paramount Skydance Secures $24B from Gulf Sovereign Wealth Funds for Warner Bros. Discovery Takeover
MATCH Act Targets ASML and Chinese Chipmakers in New U.S. Export Crackdown
Xi Jinping Pushes Demand-Driven Strategy to Modernize China's Service Sector
RBI Holds Interest Rates Steady Amid Middle East Tensions and Global Uncertainty
OpenAI Executive Shake-Up Ahead of Anticipated 2026 IPO
Oil Prices Crash 15% as Trump and Iran Agree to Two-Week Ceasefire
RBNZ Holds Rates at 2.25% as Middle East Conflict Fuels Inflation Concerns
Asian Markets Hold Steady Ahead of Trump's Iran Deadline as Oil Tops $110
Elon Musk Ties SpaceX IPO Access to Mandatory Grok AI Subscriptions
Samsung Electronics Eyes Record Q1 Profit Amid AI-Driven Chip Boom
UAE's Largest Natural Gas Facility Suspended After Attack-Triggered Fire 



