Antitrust Law Daily Wrap Up, ANTITRUST—D. Minn.: Cargill and Tyson settlement with indirect beef purchasers gets preliminary approval, (Dec 11, 2025)

By Donielle Tigay Stutland, J.D.

Cargill will pay $32.5 million and Tyson will pay $55 million and Cargill will pay $32.5 million to consumer indirect purchaser plaintiffs in connection with the settlement.

The federal district court in Minneapolis, Minnesota granted preliminary approval to the settlement agreements between Cargill and Tyson and the Consumer Indirect Purchaser Plaintiffs (“Consumer IPPs”) in connection with the ongoing multidistrict litigation concerning alleged antitrust violations in the cattle industry. Cargill agreed to pay the Consumer IPP class $32.5 million in monetary relief and Tyson agreed to pay $55 million in monetary relief, for a total of $87.5 million. The court indicated that it found that the Settlement Agreement is preliminarily determined to be fair, reasonable, adequate, and in the best interests of the Cargill and Tyson Settlement Classes, raises no obvious reasons to doubt its fairness, and raises a reasonable basis for presuming that the Settlement Agreement and its terms satisfy the requirements of Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 23(a), 23(b)(3), 23(c)(2) and 23(e), and due process (In Re Cattle and Beef Antitrust Litigation, No. 0:22-md-03031-JRT-JFD (D. Minn. Dec. 10, 2025)).

In the class action suit, brought in 2020, antitrust claims had been brought against the four largest beef packers – Tyson, Cargill, JBS and National Beef, alleging a price fixing conspiracy among the leading American beef producers. In 2022, the litigation was consolidated in the District of Minnesota. The defendants in the centralized Minnesota litigation included Cargill Inc., JBS USA Food Company, National Beef Packing Company, Swift Beef Company, Tyson Foods, Inc., and related entities. The class action delineated three separate classes of plaintiffs: 1) the direct purchaser class; 2) the indirect purchaser class; and 3) the indirect commercial purchaser class. The suit contained allegations that the beef producers allegedly colluded at industry events and trade association conferences in violation of federal antitrust law and engaged in a price fixing scheme which reduced the supply of beef and inflated prices.

In February 2022, JBS and a class of direct beef purchasers had reached a $52.5 million settlement. The direct purchaser class included grocers and others who directly purchased case ready beef.

In August 2023, cow ranchers were dismissed as a class of plaintiffs from the class action suit. The court dismissed the rancher class Sherman Act, Packers and Stockyards Act, and state antitrust and consumer protection law claims for lack of antitrust standing. The court found that the ranchers, as upstream sellers, did not allege a causal relationship between meatpacker Defendants’ conduct and their injury, or that their injury and damages were in fact traceable to Defendants’ actions. (see Antitrust Law Daily, August 18, 2023).

In November 2023, the court approved the $25 million settlement of claims brought by commercial and institutional indirect purchaser plaintiffs (“CIIPPs”) against JBS in the antitrust class action litigation. In May 2024, the court dismissed an amended complaint against Tyson, Cargill, JBS and National Beef for not plausibly alleging a causal relationship between the alleged conspiracy conduct. In February 2025, JBS agreed to an $83.5 million settlement to be distributed between two settlement classes, the Producer Class and the Exchange Class. (see Antitrust Law Daily Feb. 7, 2025).

Class definition: The court defined the Consumer Indirect Purchaser Plaintiffs (“Consumer IPPs”) class as follows: All persons and entities who indirectly purchased for personal consumption one or more of the following beef products in the Repealer Jurisdictions1 between August 1, 2014 to December 31, 2019: beef from Defendants (whether fresh or frozen) made from chuck, loin, rib or round primal cuts. For this lawsuit, beef excludes any product that is marketed as USDA Prime, organic, No Antibiotics Ever (“NAE”), antibiotic free, 100% grass-fed, kosher, halal, certified humane, Wagyu, “American-Style Kobe Beef,” as well as any products that are ground, marinated, seasoned, flavored, breaded, or cooked. Excluded from the class are Defendants, the officers, directors or employees of any Defendant; any entity in which any Defendant has a controlling interest; any affiliate, legal representative, heir or assign of any Defendant; any federal, state, or local governmental entities, any judicial officer presiding over this action and the members of his/her immediate family and judicial staff, any juror assigned to this action. Further excluded are purchases of products that contain ingredients other than beef (except for salt or water).

Settlement negotiations. The settlement comes following arm’s– length negotiations by experienced counsel, and in the case of the Tyson settlement, with the assistance of an experienced mediator. The negotiations were contentious, hard-fought, and fully informed and lasted nearly five months.

Rule 23 requirements. The Consumer IPP classes argued in their memorandum that the proposed settlement class satisfies Rule 23(a). The court found provisional certification of both the Cargill and Tyson Settlement Classes is warranted for settlement purposes in light of the Settlement Agreements because: (a) the Cargill and Tyson Settlement Classes members are so numerous that joinder is impracticable; (b) the Consumer IPPs’ claims present common issues and are typical of the claims of the Cargill and Tyson Settlement Classes; (c) the Consumer IPP named class representatives and Settlement Class Counsel will fairly and adequately represent the Cargill and Tyson Settlement Classes; and (d) common issues predominate over any individual issues affecting the members of the Cargill and Tyson Settlement Classes.

Terms of the settlement. Cargill will pay the Consumer IPP class $32.5 million in monetary relief and Tyson will pay $55 million in monetary relief, for a total of $87.5 million. The court found the proposed plan of allocation to be fair, reasonable, adequate, and to treat Class Members equitably relative to each other. The Consumer IPPs proposed that the funds will be allocated according to the amount of beef class products purchased by a class member. Tyson and Cargill also agreed to cooperate with the Consumer IPPS in any price-fixing claims against the remaining defendants.

The Case is No. 0:22-md-03031-JRT-JFD.

Judge: Tunheim, J.

Attorneys: Arielle Wagner (Lockridge Grindal Nauen PLLP) for the Plaintiffs.

Companies: Tyson Foods, Inc.; JBS S.A.; Cargill, Inc.

Cases: Antitrust MinnesotaNews