On October 14, 2022, Kroger and Albertsons Companies announced a proposed $24.6 billion merger that would have combined two of the largest supermarket chains in the United States (Alina Selyukh, NPR). The Federal Trade Commission (“FTC”), joined by the District of Columbia and eight other states, filed an action in the United States District Court for the District of Oregon to block the proposed Albertsons acquisition under Section 7 of the Clayton Act, the federal antitrust statute barring mergers that may substantially lessen competition (Alina Selyukh, NPR). Colorado and Washington separately challenged the merger in their own state courts. Id. Federal and state courts halted the merger in December 2024, and the companies abandoned the transaction shortly thereafter, leaving Albertsons to pursue breach-of-contract claims in Delaware’s Court of Chancery against Kroger (Isaiah Poritz, Bloomberg Law). On July 1, 2026, Kroger announced a far smaller transaction: a $1.65 billion agreement to acquire regional grocer Giant Eagle, a deal that will add roughly 200 stores across five states to Kroger’s portfolio (The Kroger Co.). Using the Albertsons merger’s collapse as a backdrop, this post examines whether Kroger’s Giant Eagle acquisition can satisfy antitrust regulators by tracing why the Albertsons deal failed, weighing perspectives on Giant Eagle’s market impact, and forecasting how regulators will treat the new deal.

The rapid growth of the gig economy has prompted U.S. cities to consider how existing labor protections apply to app-based workers who can be removed from a platform, or “deactivated,” without notice or explanation. (Helen McFarland, Seyfarth Shaw LLP). Seattle moved to address that gap directly. Id. In August 2023, the Seattle City Council passed Ordinance 126878, the App-Based Worker Deactivation Rights Ordinance (the “Ordinance”), which took effect on January 1, 2025. (Seattle City Council, Ordinance 126878). Uber Technologies, Inc. (“Uber”) and Maplebear, Inc. d/b/a Instacart (“Instacart”), sued to block the Ordinance on First Amendment grounds, but on March 4, 2026, a divided Ninth Circuit panel rejected the companies’ appeal of a denied preliminary injunction. (Rachel Riley, Law360). This post examines what the Ordinance requires, the companies’ constitutional arguments, and the implications of this decision for Seattle and gig economy regulation nationwide.