Antitrust regulators focus on competitive data rather than market share when evaluating mergers, as seen in the Whole Foods and Wild Oats case, where the FTC approved the merger with conditions to maintain market competition.
When assessing the impact of a proposed supermarket megamerger, such as Kroger and Albertsons, antitrust regulators no longer focus primarily on market share but rather on detailed competitive data. This approach was evident when the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) analyzed the merger between Whole Foods Market and Wild Oats Markets, which were prominent in the 'premium natural and organic supermarket chains' niche. Ultimately, the merger was permitted with conditions to sell off certain assets to maintain local market competition, illustrating the complexities in defining markets for antitrust purposes.
In the case of Whole Foods and Wild Oats, the FTC looked at detailed evidence of profits and prices in various locations, impacting their decision to initially block the merger. After legal disputes, the merger was allowed in 2009 with the stipulation of divesting stores and the Wild Oats brand name, ensuring preservation of competition in specific markets. The difficulties in defining markets indeed reflect the broader trend in antitrust regulation where the actual competition is scrutinized over traditional market share metrics.