Tyson Foods, other pork producers face lawsuits over alleged price-fixing
A US judge has ruled that several major pork producers must answer antitrust allegations in court over claims they conspired to limit supply and inflate prices, resulting in billions of dollars in overcharges.
USA – A federal judge has ruled that Tyson Foods, Smithfield Foods, JBS USA, and several other pork producers must face lawsuits alleging they conspired to limit supply and raise prices, leading to significant overcharges for consumers and businesses.
US District Judge John Tunheim issued a 232-page order rejecting attempts by the meat processors to have the allegations dismissed before trial.
The judge determined that enough evidence exists for a jury to decide whether the companies violated antitrust laws.
The ruling removes Hormel Foods from the lawsuit, with the judge stating that the company was less involved in industry data-sharing practices linked to the alleged price-fixing.
Tyson, Smithfield, and JBS have not issued responses to the ruling, while Hormel welcomed its dismissal from the case in a statement.
All of the companies involved have denied any wrongdoing.
Michael Flannery, an attorney representing small businesses and restaurants, said in a statement that the judge’s decision affirms the strength of the evidence supporting the claims.
Other attorneys representing different plaintiff groups either declined to comment or did not respond immediately.
Industry-Wide Allegations
These lawsuits are part of a broader legal battle accusing beef, poultry, and pork producers of engaging in price-fixing schemes.
Similar cases in other meat sectors have resulted in settlements worth hundreds of millions of US dollars (US$).
Tunheim’s ruling also names Agri Stats, an industry benchmarking firm, as a defendant in the pork price-fixing allegations.
The plaintiffs claim that from 2009 to 2018, Agri Stats facilitated the exchange of confidential market data among pork producers, allowing them to coordinate pricing strategies.
Tyson has defended its use of Agri Stats, saying it utilized the service to manage production costs rather than engage in anti-competitive practices.
Agri Stats has denied any wrongdoing and did not respond to requests for comment.
The court ruling stated that the evidence supports a reasonable conclusion that a coordinated effort existed among the accused companies rather than independent decision-making.
A plaintiff expert estimated that consumers overpaid by at least US$1.4 billion during the class-action period, according to court filings.
Sign up HERE to receive our email newsletters with the latest news and insights from Africa and around the world, and follow us on our WhatsApp channel for updates.
