Antitrust Law Daily Wrap Up, ANTITRUST NEWS—D. Colo.: Farm sues fertilizer giants, alleging broad NPK price-fixing scheme, (Mar 16, 2026)

By Martin A. Steinberg, J.D.

Six of the largest fertilizer producers allegedly conspired since 2021 to control prices for nitrogen, phosphate, and potash fertilizers.

An Iowa farm filed a putative direct-purchaser antitrust class action against Mosaic, Nutrien, CF Industries, Koch, Yara, and Canpotex, alleging that the companies conspired since at least January 2021 to fix prices for nitrogen, phosphate, and potash (NPK) fertilizers nationwide. According to the complaint, the defendants exploited their dominance in highly concentrated fertilizer markets by restraining output, maintaining capacity discipline, and exchanging competitively sensitive information, which allegedly drove fertilizer prices sharply upward, left them elevated after supply disruptions eased, and forced farmers to pay supracompetitive prices. The suit further cites parallel price increases, record profits, Canpotex’s alleged coordinating role in potash, public criticism from the USDA, and a reported DOJ investigation as support for the claimed Sherman Act violation (Union Line Farms, Inc. v. The Mosaic Co., No. 1:26-cv-01043-SBP (D. Colo. Mar. 13, 2026)).

Parties. The complaint alleges that Union Line Farms, an Iowa farm, directly bought NPK fertilizers from one or more defendants during the class period and was injured by paying allegedly inflated prices. The complaint then profiles each defendant—The Mosaic Company (Mosaic); Nutrien Ltd. and Nutrien Ag Solutions, Inc. (together, “Nutrien”); CF Industries Holdings, Inc., CF Industries, Inc., and CF Industries Nitrogen, LLC (together, “CF Industries”); Koch Agronomic Services, LLC (Koch); Yara International ASA and Yara North America, Inc. (together, “Yara”); and Canpotex Ltd. (Canpotex)—casting them as dominant producers or sellers in the nitrogen, phosphate, and potash markets, and emphasizing Nutrien’s scale in potash and Canpotex’s role as the Mosaic–Nutrien joint venture responsible for marketing and exporting Canadian potash. It also alleges that unnamed co-conspirators participated in the scheme and that defendants are responsible for acts carried out through their agents and acquired entities.

Fertilizer industry. The complaint explained that nitrogen, phosphate, and potash nutrients are essential agricultural inputs used to increase crop yields and that farmers typically purchase them annually through wholesalers and agricultural retailers. The section describes the production processes and supply chains for each nutrient and alleges that the markets for nitrogen, phosphate, and potash fertilizers are highly concentrated, dominated by a small number of large producers who exert substantial control over capacity and output. It further alleges that barriers to entry, including capital-intensive mining and processing facilities, regulatory approvals, and limited access to key raw materials, restrict new competition.

The complaint alleges that distribution channels and pricing dynamics leave farmers and agricultural retailers reliant on a limited number of suppliers, and fertilizer prices are closely monitored across the industry. According to the pleading, this market structure, characterized by high concentration, significant barriers to entry, and transparent pricing, facilitates coordination among major producers and allows them to influence supply and maintain elevated prices for NPK fertilizers sold in the U.S.

Alleged anticompetitive conduct. The complaint asserts that fertilizer prices rose sharply in 2021 and 2022 and remained unusually high thereafter, even as input costs and supply disruptions eased. According to the complaint, the defendants, described as dominant firms in highly concentrated markets, were able to sustain these price levels through coordinated output restraint, disciplined capacity management, and parallel production decisions. The defendants allegedly reduced or curtailed production, delayed capacity expansions, and otherwise constrained supply despite strong global demand. These actions occurred alongside public statements emphasizing ‘discipline’ in production and capital expenditures, which allegedly signaled to competitors that maintaining restricted output and elevated prices was preferable to expanding production, the complaint says.

The complaint further alleges that the structure of the fertilizer industry facilitated coordination through high market concentration, repeated interactions among a small number of producers, and transparent pricing information, enabling firms to monitor competitors’ behavior and sustain parallel conduct. The pleading also highlights the role of industry associations, conferences, earnings calls, and public communications through which companies allegedly signaled production intentions and market conditions to one another.

In addition, the complaint asserts that the defendants experienced record or unusually high profits during the relevant period, which the plaintiff characterizes as inconsistent with competitive market conditions. The pleading also references government scrutiny of fertilizer pricing and supply, including public criticism from U.S. officials. It reports that federal antitrust authorities were examining potential collusion in the fertilizer industry. Based on these allegations, the complaint contends that the defendants’ coordinated supply restrictions and pricing behavior artificially inflated fertilizer prices in the U.S., forcing farmers and other direct purchasers to pay supracompetitive prices for NPK fertilizers.

Relevant markets. The complaint alleges that the relevant product market consists of nitrogen, phosphorus, and potash fertilizers. In the alternative, the complaint asserts that separate product submarkets exist for nitrogen, phosphorus, and potash fertilizers. The complaint further alleges that the relevant geographic market is the United States, asserting that the defendants produce and distribute NPK fertilizers through facilities and distribution networks nationwide and have allegedly increased fertilizer prices nationwide.

Antitrust injury. Defendants’ purported conspiracy to fix, raise, maintain, or stabilize prices for nitrogen, phosphate, and potash fertilizers caused direct purchasers to pay artificially inflated prices during the class period. According to the complaint, the alleged supply restrictions and coordinated pricing practices raised fertilizer prices above competitive levels throughout the U.S., resulting in direct and measurable economic injury to farmers and other purchasers of NPK fertilizers. These injuries are the type the federal antitrust laws are intended to prevent and allegedly flowed directly from the defendants’ conduct. The complaint contends that the effects of the alleged conspiracy were widespread across the market and that the resulting overcharges were borne by direct purchasers who bought fertilizers from defendants during the relevant period.

Class allegations. Plaintiff alleges that the action should proceed as a class action on behalf of all direct purchasers of nitrogen, phosphate, and potash fertilizers from defendants during the proposed class period. The complaint asserts that the proposed class is sufficiently numerous that joinder of all members would be impracticable and that common questions—such as whether defendants conspired to fix, raise, maintain, or stabilize fertilizer prices—predominate over individual issues.

Plaintiff’s claims are typical of those of other class members because all class members allegedly paid supracompetitive prices as a result of the same anticompetitive conduct. Plaintiff also asserts that it will fairly and adequately represent the interests of the class and has retained experienced antitrust counsel to prosecute the case. Finally, the complaint contends that class treatment is superior to individual litigation because many class members suffered damages too small to justify separate lawsuits, and because resolving the claims in a single proceeding would promote efficient adjudication.

Counts and prayers for relief.

Count I—Nitrogen fertilizers. Plaintiff alleges that CF Industries, Nutrien, Koch, and Yara conspired since at least January 1, 2021, to fix, raise, stabilize, or maintain at artificially high levels the price of nitrogen fertilizers, causing direct purchasers to pay overcharges.

Count II—Phosphorus fertilizers. Plaintiff alleges that Nutrien and Mosaic conspired since at least January 1, 2021, to fix, raise, stabilize, or maintain at artificially high levels the price of phosphorus fertilizers, causing direct purchasers to pay overcharges.

Count III—Potash. Plaintiff alleges that Nutrien, Mosaic, and Canpotex conspired since at least January 1, 2021, to fix, raise, stabilize, or maintain at artificially high levels the price of potash, causing direct purchasers to pay overcharges.

Count IV—Unjust Enrichment. In the alternative, the plaintiff alleges that the defendants were unjustly enriched by retaining artificially high profits derived from the allegedly inflated prices paid by the plaintiff and the class for NPK fertilizers.

Prayer for relief. Plaintiff requests certification of the proposed class and appointment of the plaintiff as class representative and its counsel as class counsel. The complaint further seeks judgment against the defendants for damages sustained by the plaintiff and the class as a result of the alleged antitrust violations, including treble damages, together with prejudgment and post-judgment interest.

The complaint also requests restitution and disgorgement of the defendants’ allegedly unlawful gains under the unjust enrichment claim, injunctive relief prohibiting the defendants from continuing the alleged anticompetitive conduct, and recovery of attorneys’ fees, costs, and expenses. Finally, the plaintiff asks for any additional legal or equitable relief the court deems appropriate.

The Case is No. 1:26-cv-01043-SBP.

Judge: Prose, S.

Attorneys: Jonathan S. Crevier (DiCello Levitt LLP) for Union Line Farms, Inc.

Companies: Union Line Farms, Inc.; The Mosaic Co.

MainStory: TopStory Antitrust ColoradoNews GCNNews