Connect with us

Lifestyle

Kroger and Albertsons grocery megamerger halted by two courts

Published

on

Kroger and Albertsons grocery megamerger halted by two courts

A shopper pushes a cart through a Kroger supermarket in Newport, Ky.

Al Behrman/AP/AP


hide caption

toggle caption

Advertisement

Al Behrman/AP/AP

Kroger and Albertsons saw their $24.6 billion merger blocked on Tuesday by judges in two separate cases, one brought by federal regulators and the other by the Washington state attorney general.

What would be the biggest grocery merger in U.S. history is now in legal peril after over two years of delays. The companies could choose to continue their legal appeals or abandon the deal. They await another ruling in a third lawsuit in Colorado.

Kroger runs many familiar grocery stores, including Ralphs, Harris Teeter, Fred Meyer and King Soopers. Albertsons owns Safeway and Vons. In statements on Tuesday, the companies argued the courts erred in their judgment and said they were evaluating their options.

Advertisement

Tuesday’s first ruling is a big win for the Federal Trade Commission. It — together with several states — had asked a federal court in Oregon to stop the merger. The government argued that the resulting colossus would lead to higher food prices and fewer choices for shoppers and workers. In many markets, the two chains are each other’s biggest rival.

Kroger and Albertsons, in turn, have argued that together, they actually would have more power to lower prices, as well as to compete against other huge retailers that sell food, including Walmart, Costco and Amazon.

U.S. District Judge Adrienne Nelson on Tuesday ruled that the merger must halt while it undergoes the administrative review inside the FTC — a procedure that Kroger is separately challenging in court as unconstitutional. About an hour later, a Washington state court judge separately ruled that the merger violated that state’s consumer-protection law.

“Both defendants gestured toward a future in which they would not be able to compete against ever-growing Walmart, Amazon, or Costco,” Nelson wrote in her order. “The overarching goals of antitrust law are not met, however, by permitting an otherwise unlawful merger in order to permit firms to compete with an industry giant.”

Together, Kroger and Albertsons have nearly 5,000 stores and employ some 720,000 people across 48 states. They particularly overlap in western states.

Advertisement

Cases hinge on how Americans buy groceries

During the three-week federal trial in a Portland courtroom, the FTC and the companies painted differing views of the grocery market.

Kroger and Albertsons described their merger as existential to survival. They argued the FTC’s view of competition — focused on options a shopper might have in their neighborhood — was outdated in the wake of big-box behemoths and the sprawl of dollar stores.

Kroger officials testified that they typically compared their prices to Walmart, rather than Albertsons, and struggled to keep up given Walmart’s ability to negotiate better deals with suppliers thanks to its scale. Walmart is the biggest seller of groceries in the U.S., followed by Kroger and Costco.

The FTC, however, argued that someone who shops at Walmart, Costco, CVS or even Trader Joe’s likely still relies on their neighborhood supermarket. Government lawyers said enough people were concerned about the merger that the agency received an unprecedented 100,000 public comments.

Federal officials also shared complaints raised by labor unions.

Advertisement

Kroger and Albertsons are the rare unionized shops in retail. The companies argue that, in fact, serves as a reason why they should be allowed to unite to face up to bigger, non-unionized rivals. But the FTC says a merger would give the companies much more power over contract negotiations, leading to lower pay and worse benefits.

Questions about a plan to sell off some stores

The judge separately weighed the plan by Kroger and Albertsons to sell hundreds of their stores to a firm called C&S Wholesale Grocers as a condition of their merger, meant to appease regulators.

The idea is to create a new grocery rival in markets where Kroger and Albertsons currently overlap and, therefore, a merger would eliminate competition. C&S, a grocery supplier, had agreed to buy 579 stores in 18 states and in Washington, D.C.

But the FTC argued C&S would struggle to compete. The firm currently runs only 23 stores, mostly under the Piggly Wiggly brand, without much nationwide name recognition. Government lawyers shared internal notes, in which C&S executives raised concerns about the quality of stores they would acquire.

Advertisement

Kroger and C&S executives presented C&S as an experienced grocery company that could hit the ground running. Judge Nelson remained skeptical.

“There are serious concerns about C&S’ ability to run a large-scale retail grocery business that can successfully compete against the proposed merged business, as would be required to offset the competitive harm of the merger,” she wrote in Tuesday’s order.

The last time the government approved a grocery merger that hinged on divesting stores, it was 2015. Albertsons bought Safeway. It sold off 168 stores, then repurchased 33 of them on the cheap because one of the buyers filed for bankruptcy protection within months of the deal.

Lifestyle

‘How to Rule the World’ explores education and power at Stanford University

Published

on

‘How to Rule the World’ explores education and power at Stanford University

Students walk on the Stanford University campus on March 14, 2019, in Stanford, Calif.

Ben Margot/AP


hide caption

toggle caption

Advertisement

Ben Margot/AP

When Theo Baker arrived at Stanford University a few years ago, he joined the student newspaper, following the path of his journalist parents, Peter Baker, a White House correspondent for The New York Times, and Susan Glasser, a writer for The New Yorker.

Through his reporting as a student journalist, he eventually broke a story about manipulated data in Stanford President Marc Tessier-Lavigne’s neuroscience research that helped lead to the university president’s resignation.

Theo Baker’s book, How to Rule the World: An Education in Power at Stanford University was released May 19. In it, Baker describes Stanford as a place where proximity to Silicon Valley gives rise to a parallel system of influence, recruitment and money, with investors looking to identify promising students almost as soon as they arrive on campus.

Advertisement

He told Morning Edition host Steve Inskeep there was “a sort of Stanford inside Stanford,” where elite students are drawn into an “alternate reality” of excess and access to cut corners.

In the interview, he discusses how Stanford is not just a university but also a pipeline where status and power can matter as much as ideas.

We reached out to Stanford University for comment and have not heard back.

Listen to the interview by clicking play on the blue box above.

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Lifestyle

OTB Takes Full Control of Viktor & Rolf

Published

on

OTB Takes Full Control of Viktor & Rolf
The Italian fashion group behind Diesel and Maison Margiela is taking full ownership of the avant-garde haute couture house, acquiring the remaining 30 percent it didn’t already own. Founders Viktor Horsting and Rolf Snoeren remain creative directors.
Continue Reading

Lifestyle

How having zero points in tennis — or ‘love’ — came to sound so sweet

Published

on

How having zero points in tennis — or ‘love’ — came to sound so sweet

The scoreboard shows the results of the women’s singles final match between Iga Swiatek of Poland and Amanda Anisimova of the U.S. at the Wimbledon Tennis Championships in London, Saturday, July 12, 2025.

Kirsty Wigglesworth/AP


hide caption

toggle caption

Advertisement

Kirsty Wigglesworth/AP

Fifteen points in tennis? Nice. Thirty, 40 — even better. Advantage — that sounds good. “Love” — that also must be great, right? Well, not quite.

As the French Open rolls on and Serena Williams has announced her return to the sport, maybe you’ve been paying a little more attention to tennis. The sport’s scoring system is notably distinct, and can sometimes be hard to grasp for newcomers. But even tennis aficionados might not know why, or how, “love” became the unmistakable callout for zero points. For this installment of NPR’s Word of the Week, we’re exploring how a word that signifies trailing behind got such a sweet name.

“Love” comes from the heart — or an egg?

It’s hard to pinpoint when the first tennis ball went over the net. Tennis is a derivative of lots of other sports, such as “jeu de paume,” a handball game played in France, said JT Buzanga, the collections manager at the International Tennis Hall of Fame museum.

Advertisement

But tennis became a patented, official sport in 1874, said Steve Flink, a journalist whose tennis coverage got him inducted into the International Tennis Hall of Fame. It has retained its unique, mysterious scoring system ever since.

“By and large, the original system has held up almost entirely,” Flink said.

The use of “love” goes back to the late 18th century, said Jesse Sheidlower, a lexicographer. But it was used earlier than that in card games such as whist and bridge. Before the term made its way to tennis, the sport favored plain old “nothing,” or “nil,” he said.

Why love in the first place, though? Historians don’t really know for sure, but there are a few theories.

The French could have something to do with it. Some historians believe “love” derives from “l’oeuf,” which means “the egg” in French. Because eggs are shaped like zeros, terms such as “goose egg” and “duck’s egg” have been used in other contexts to mean zero, Sheidlower said.

Advertisement

It’s also possible English speakers mispronounced l’oeuf as “love.” But Sheidlower isn’t convinced that’s the answer.

“It’s the French equivalent of an English expression. But since that expression doesn’t appear in French, the French word wouldn’t have been used,” he said.

To be sure, France has had a lot of influence on tennis culture, Buzanga said. For example, “deuce” or a game tied at 40 points, comes from the French word for “two”: “deux.” But he prefers another prominent theory: that “love” comes from the idiom “for the love of the game.” Even if a player hasn’t scored, it doesn’t matter, because their heart is in it. It’s the theory Sheidlower said is the most plausible, because the idiom was used by the English before tennis was popularized.

Another variation of the “love of the game” theory is that the word could have come from the Dutch “lof,” or “honor” — or the Latin “amare,” meaning “to love,” Flink said.

But if tennis’ “love” doesn’t come from a French word, the theory at least has a French sensibility.

Advertisement

“I think the ‘for the love of the game’ is kind of romantic,” Buzanga said.

“Love” probably isn’t going anywhere

Tennis used to be a sport of leisure. The style of play has changed a lot over the years; players are more athletic and competitive, for instance, Flink said. But the rules of the sport are more steadfast, he said.

“There’s this incredible, enduring respect for tradition in tennis,” he said. “Changes are not made easily.”

There has been one major change in modern history: the tie-break. Matches can go on and on because players have to score two consecutive points to break a deuce, or by two games to break a tied set. But the onset of television meant matches would have to get shorter if the sport wanted to capture a larger audience, Flink said.

Change even came for “love.” An alternative sprouted up in the 1970s, and is still used today: “bagel,” named for its zero shape, Sheidlower said. Novices may say “zero,” and insiders will understand what they mean, but they “will needle them about it,” Flink said.

Advertisement

But “love” still prevails.

“People kind of like it,” Flink said. “It’s different. Why say zero when you can say love?”

Continue Reading
Advertisement

Trending