A federal antitrust lawsuit accusing four of North America’s largest frozen potato processors of coordinating price increases will move forward after a U.S. judge declined to dismiss central allegations involving the sharing of sensitive market information.
The decision allows plaintiffs to pursue claims against Lamb Weston, McCain, J.R. Simplot and Cavendish Farms, as well as market analytics company Circana, according to an Oct. 29 report by Lukie Pieterse in Potato News Today. The case concerns pricing practices for frozen French fries, hash browns, tater tots and other processed potato products.
U.S. District Judge Jeffrey I. Cummings, sitting in the Northern District of Illinois, ruled Sept. 17 that the plaintiffs had presented sufficiently plausible allegations to proceed with their principal federal antitrust claims. The court dismissed certain claims brought under state laws.
The ruling is a procedural victory for the plaintiffs, rather than a determination that the companies engaged in illegal conduct.
Pricing Data at Center of Dispute
The lawsuit focuses in part on Circana’s PotatoTrack platform, which collected sales information from participating processors and provided market analysis based on the submitted data.
According to Potato News Today, the plaintiffs allege that companies supplied weekly information covering sales revenue, product volumes, units sold and product categories. They contend that access to the resulting reports helped processors assess competitors’ behavior and maintain higher prices.
The central issue is whether information presented as aggregated market intelligence gave participating companies enough insight into competitors’ operations to undermine independent pricing decisions.
The defendants maintain that the information was anonymized, combined across companies and based on historical transactions. They have challenged the contention that the reporting system facilitated unlawful coordination.
The plaintiffs, however, argue that the market’s concentration and the level of detail available in the reports could have made commercially sensitive information apparent even without identifying individual competitors.
The court found the allegations sufficient to warrant further examination, according to the industry publication.
Alleged Price Increases Draw Scrutiny
The plaintiffs have also cited similarities in the timing and size of price increases announced by the processors.
In one example detailed by Potato News Today, consumer plaintiffs alleged that all four companies announced increases of approximately 12 cents per pound during a five-day period in February 2022.
The complaints identify additional instances of allegedly similar pricing moves in 2021 and 2022.
The plaintiffs further contend that prices for frozen potato products climbed 62% between January 2022 and December 2024, while production input costs fell 33% from October 2023 through mid-2025.
Those figures cover different time frames and do not, by themselves, establish that processors earned unlawful profits or coordinated their prices.
Read more: Major US Potato Processors Face Price-Fixing Allegations in New Suits
The defendants have pointed to pandemic-related cost increases and pressure on operating margins as alternative explanations for their pricing decisions.
According to Potato News Today, the judge declined to resolve those competing explanations at the dismissal stage, leaving the parties to develop evidence as the case proceeds.
Market Concentration Raises Stakes
The plaintiffs estimate that the four processor groups collectively control approximately 97% to 98% of the U.S. frozen potato products market, according to the report.
That alleged concentration is significant to their argument because sharing information among a small number of major suppliers could potentially reveal more about competitors than comparable reporting in a fragmented industry.
The lawsuit advances two legal theories under Section 1 of the Sherman Act.
One alleges that the companies participated in an unlawful price-fixing arrangement, with shared market information helping them coordinate or monitor pricing behavior.
The other contends that the exchange of information itself restricted competition, regardless of whether the plaintiffs can establish a separate agreement to set specific prices.
We’d love to be your preferred source for news.
Please add us to your preferred sources list so our news, data and interviews show up in your feed. Thanks!
Both theories will face further scrutiny as the litigation progresses.
Justice Department Weighs In
The U.S. Department of Justice entered the dispute in February, filing a statement of interest addressing the legal treatment of information exchanges between competitors.
As reported by Potato News Today, the department argued that market information should not automatically be considered harmless simply because it is aggregated, anonymized or based on past transactions.
Instead, the competitive implications should be evaluated in light of the market and the circumstances surrounding the exchange.
The department did not endorse the plaintiffs’ allegations or recommend a particular outcome on the dismissal motions.
Its involvement nevertheless highlighted the broader legal questions surrounding data-sharing arrangements in concentrated industries.
Circana has separately disputed allegations that it participated in a conspiracy.
McCain previously rejected accusations of antitrust violations when the litigation emerged in November 2024, and said it intended to defend itself, according to a statement.
Next Phase to Examine Industry Practices
The September ruling cleared the way for discovery, the process through which litigants exchange documents, obtain testimony and examine evidence.
According to Potato News Today, the court lifted an earlier suspension of discovery and instructed the parties to submit a joint status report by Oct. 27 outlining proposed schedules for factual and expert investigations, along with an update on settlement discussions.
A further case-tracking date was set for Dec. 1.
The litigation could have implications beyond the frozen potato business as courts examine how companies use commercial analytics and when exchanges of industry information may interfere with competition.
For the plaintiffs, the next phase will require evidence supporting their allegations that the data-sharing arrangements and pricing patterns reflected unlawful conduct.
Source: Potato News Today
Add as Preferred Source