Tyson, pork producers face price-fixing class actions
There's enough evidence to weigh antitrust claims, judge claims
2 April 2025
2 minute read
By: Tyson Foods and other top pork producers must face lawsuits from consumers and other buyers accusing them of a conspiracy to restrict supply and fix prices, causing billions of dollars in overcharges, Reuters reported, citing a ruling by US judge in Minnesota.
US District Judge John Tunheim in a 232-page order on Monday mostly rejected efforts by leading pork processors to knock out the allegations before any trial.
Tunheim said there was enough evidence for a jury to weigh antitrust claims against Tyson, Smithfield Foods, JBS USA and several other companies. The order dismissed Hormel as a defendant.
Tyson, Smithfield and JBS did not immediately respond to requests for comment. Hormel in a statement said it welcomed the court's ruling dismissing it from the cases. The companies have all denied any wrongdoing.
Attorney Michael Flannery, representing restaurants and other small businesses, in a statement said the judge's order "makes clear there is compelling evidence" supporting his clients' claims.
Attorneys for consumers and other groups of plaintiffs either declined to comment or did not immediately respond to a request for one.
The lawsuits are part of a broader set of cases accusing beef, turkey and chicken producers of fixing prices in their markets. The litigation has generated hundreds of millions of dollars in settlements.
Tunheim’s order also said the industry benchmarking company Agri Stats must face antitrust allegations for its alleged role in the conspiracy from at least 2009 to 2018.
The plaintiffs alleged pork producers exchanged competitively sensitive, non-public information through Agri Stats, allowing them to communicate with each other and maintain the price-fixing conspiracy. Tyson said it used Agri Stats to find ways to improve costs.
Agri Stats did not immediately respond to a request for comment. It has denied any wrongdoing.
Tunheim said Hormel, unlike rival pork producers, “was reluctant — and in some ways, refused — to participate in Agri Stats reports.”
The judge said the evidence in the litigation “supports a reasonable inference of a price-fixing conspiracy and tends to exclude the possibility of mere independent action among co-defendants.”
One expert for the plaintiffs said consumers suffered at least $1.4 billion in damages during the class period, court records show.
