Critics of a proposed merger between two mid-sized grocery chains argue that reduced competition will inevitably raise prices for consumers in overlapping markets. But economic studies of past grocery mergers of similar scale show mixed results: prices rose in roughly half of overlapping markets studied and stayed flat or fell in the other half, with the outcome closely tied to whether a third competitor remained active in the specific local market after the merger. In markets where at least one other major grocery competitor remained, prices generally held steady; in markets where the merger left only one major chain, prices generally rose. Regulators evaluating this merger should therefore focus their review on market-by-market competitive conditions rather than treat the merger's price effect as uniform across all overlapping markets.