America’s largest beef packers, JBS, Tyson, Cargill, and National Beef Packing, must face antitrust litigation over an alleged industry wide scheme to widen the “meat margin” between the cost of live cattle and the price of processed beef, a federal judge in Minneapolis ruled Tuesday, September 14.
Judge John R. Tunheim denied the defendants motion to dismiss the class-action antitrust filed in April 2019 by R-CALF USA. The case may move forward in the US District Court for the District of Minnesota, where the four meatpackers are accused of forcing the cost of cattle down, and the price of beef up, through cartel tactics like coordinated procurement and “slaughter restraint.”
The lawsuit alleges the four packers violated the Sherman Antitrust Act of 1890 by engaging in a price-fixing conspiracy, and alleges the packers violated the Packers and Stockyards Act as well as the Commodity Exchange Act.
Tunheim’s order allows the antitrust case to proceed to discovery so Plaintiffs may test their claims.
The suit alleges that from January 1, 2015, through the present, the four packers conspired to depress the price of fed cattle they purchased from American ranchers, thereby inflating their own margins and profits.
The class action lawsuit seeks to recover the losses suffered by two classes believed harmed by the packing companies’ alleged conduct. The first class includes cattle producers who sold fed cattle to any one of the firms from January 2015 to the present. The second class consists of traders who transacted live cattle futures or options contracts on the Chicago Mercantile Exchange from January 2015 to the present. The complaint, which plaintiffs claim is supported by witness accounts, including a former employee of one of the packers, trade records, and economic evidence, alleges that the packers conspired to artificially depress fed cattle prices through various means.
Want more news? Subscribe to CPI’s free daily newsletter for more headlines and updates on antitrust developments around the world.
Featured News
Federal Judge Orders Google to Open Android App Store Amid Antitrust Pressure
Oct 7, 2024 by
CPI
Federal Judge Greenlights FTC’s Antitrust Lawsuit Against Amazon, Tosses Some State Claims
Oct 7, 2024 by
CPI
Supreme Court Rejects Uber and Lyft’s Appeal in California Gig Worker Suits
Oct 7, 2024 by
CPI
Supreme Court Sidesteps 5-Hour Energy Pricing Case, Allowing Antitrust Claims to Proceed
Oct 7, 2024 by
CPI
Tempur Sealy and Mattress Firm Argue FTC Proceedings Are Unconstitutional in New Suit
Oct 7, 2024 by
CPI
Antitrust Mix by CPI
Antitrust Chronicle® – Refusal to Deal
Sep 27, 2024 by
CPI
Antitrust’s Refusal-to-Deal Doctrine: The Emperor Has No Clothes
Sep 27, 2024 by
Erik Hovenkamp
Why All Antitrust Claims are Refusal to Deal Claims and What that Means for Policy
Sep 27, 2024 by
Ramsi Woodcock
The Aspen Misadventure
Sep 27, 2024 by
Roger Blair & Holly P. Stidham
Refusal to Deal in Antitrust Law: Evolving Jurisprudence and Business Justifications in the Align Technology Case
Sep 27, 2024 by
Timothy Hsieh