Antitrust Law Daily Wrap Up, ANTITRUST—D. Colo.: Justice Department annot raise objections in meat processing wage suppression settlement final fairness hearing, (Nov 6, 2026)

By Justin Marcus Smith, J.D.

The court ruled that a settlement is not prejudicial if it does not prevent later assertion of a non-settling party’s claims, even if, in this instance, the U.S. must start a second lawsuit to pursue injunctive relief.

The United States Departmetn of Justice cannot participate in a final fairness hearing about a series of proposed settlements in the wage suppression antitrust class action against 15 meat processors, ruled the federal district court in Denver, Colorado. The court held that although the Class Action Fairness Act (CAFA), 28 U.S.C. § 1715(b), (d), requires settling defendants to notify the Attorney General, it does not “expand the authority” of federal officials. Only class members may object to a proposed class settlement. Non-class members have no standing to object. The court cautioned that the rule applies to objections in the district court as well as to challenges on appeal. A non-party may object to a settlement that causes “plain legal prejudice,” but a settlement that does not prevent later assertion of a non-settling party’s claims does not cause prejudice, even if it forces a second lawsuit. The court concluded the DOJ could pursue whatever injunctive relief it sees as necessary to protect the government’s Sherman Act enforcement interests in a discrete action. The court denied the U.S. request to participate in the fairness hearing; however, the court said it would consider the concerns expressed in the U.S. statement of interest in deciding whether the settlements are fair, reasonable, and adequate under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(e)(2) (Brown v. JBS USA Food Co., No. 1:22-cv-02946-PAB-STV (D. Colo. Oct. 28, 2026)).

Background. In 2022, two workers in the red meat processing industry brought a putative class action against 15 processors and their respective subsidiaries, plus two consulting firms. The complaint alleged conspiracies to exchange information in order to suppress wages in the meat processing industry in violation of the Sherman Act. The first amended complaint largely survived motions to dismiss, and in 2024, various defendants began to settle.

Settling defendants in February 2024 were: Perdue Farms Inc.; Seaboard Foods, LLC, Triumph Foods, LLC; and data consultancy Webber, Meng, Sahl, and Company, Inc. (WMS).

Settling defendants in January 2025 were: JBS USA Food Company; Tyson Foods, Inc.; American Foods Group, LLC; National Beef Packing Co., LLC; Cargill, Inc.; Cargill Meat Solutions Corp.; Hormel Foods Corp.; Rochelle Foods, LLC; and Quality Pork Processors, Inc.

Settling defendants in October 2025 were: Agri Beef Co., Washington Beef, LLC; and Indiana Packers Corporation.

Settling defendants in April 2026 were: the Agri Stats, Inc. market data consultancy and Greater Omaha Packing Co., Inc. Also in April 2026, the court preliminarily approved a class of meat workers employed over a 24-year period starting in 2000 and ending in early 2024. The court concluded that certifying the class would allow the plaintiffs to gain immediate resources to litigate their remaining claims.

In a statement of interest filed on September 29, 2026, the U.S. argued the proposed settlements were inadequate, and it urged the court not to approve them, because they lacked any injunctive relief against future wage fixing. The U.S. asked the court to: (1) withhold final approval of the proposed settlements as being inadequate under R. 23(e); and (2) instruct the parties to return with a proposal to provide injunctive relief, with input and guidance from the United States.

U.S. argument. The U.S. said its “central concern,” after reviewing all publicly available proposed settlements between the meat workers and the meat processing defendants, was the meat workers’ allegation that Sherman Act violations were continuing. Accordingly, the U.S. sought to participate in the November 13, 2026 final fairness hearing to propose and discuss injunctive provisions to address the types of anticompetitive conduct in question. The U.S. said it had begun engaging with the parties and would continue to do so in advance of the fairness hearing.

The U.S. based its request to participate in the fairness hearing with its interest in enforcing the federal antitrust laws, including Section 1 of the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1. It said its interests are “especially acute in the class-action context.” It mentioned the CAFA requirement that settling defendants notify the Attorney General, and more specifically, it cited 28 U.S.C. § 517 as permitting the Attorney General to direct any DOJ officer to “attend to the interests of the United States in a suit pending in a court of the United States.”

The U.S. stressed that the meat workers’ complaint called for both damages and injunctive relief, but the pending settlements did not include any injunctive provisions. Moreover, the proposed settlements contain releases for the defendants “without any means of ensuring that [they] do not perpetuate the same or similar misconduct.” The settlement agreements also specify that the defendants may use them in any other action to support a defense or counterclaim.

The U.S. warned that the proposed settlements are inadequate under the Tenth Circuit’s four-factor test. See In re Samsung Top-Load Washing Mach. Mktg., Sales Pracs. & Prods. Liab. Litig., 997 F.3d 1077, 1087 (10th Cir. 2021) (listing Rule 23 factors). The U.S. said the 74-page Meng declaration went into considerable detail about elaborate design and implementation of red meat industry compensation surveys and careful management and coordination of compensation meetings. Even if the alleged anticompetitive conduct ended, an injunction could prevent future violations.

In conclusion, the U.S. appeared to urge the court to exercise its jurisdiction and power at equity to restrain acts of the same type or class that might be committed in the future, unless enjoined, and that the Meng declaration pointed to a specific need to do so. The U.S. emphasized that the defendants might try to “recreate the survey machinery in another form, with or without the assistance of an intermediary like Agri States, Inc. or Webber, Meng, Sahl and Company.”

Opposition. The meat worker plaintiffs argued injunctive relief was unnecessary because the challenged conduct ended in 2019. The meat workers also argued the U.S. did not have standing to object.

The Case is No. 1:22-cv-02946-PAB-STV.

Judge: Brimmer, P.

Attorneys: Abby R. Wolf (Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP) for Ron Brown. Christian T. Becker (Kasowitz LLP) for JBS USA Food Co.

Companies: JBS USA Food Co.

MainStory: TopStory Antitrust ColoradoNews AntitrustDivisionNews GCNNews