Antitrust Law Daily Wrap Up, ANTITRUST NEWS: Justice Department announces settlement ending exchange of competitively-sensitive information among meat processors, (May 8, 2026)

By Justin Marcus Smith, J.D.

The proposed settlement will “help lower food prices, undo decades of distorted competition in the broiler chicken market, and ensure that the pork and turkey markets remain free from these anticompetitive practices that harmed American consumers across the country.”

The Antitrust Division of the Department of Justice announced that it has reached a settlement and proposed final judgment to resolve the antitrust case against Agri Stats Inc. The complaint alleged unlawful information sharing among competing meat processors, specifically in the chicken, pork, and turkey markets. If the court enters final judgment, Agri Stats must, among other requirements, not report any sales data, as defined, whether or not it is anonymized. It must also offer its sales reports to anyone in the United States at the same average price charged to single-plant meat processors. Agri Stats agreed to pay $350,000 to the state plaintiffs. Unless the court grants an extension, the final judgment will expire 10 years from the date of its entry, except that it might terminated after 7 years on motion by the United States with consent of the plaintiff states (U.S. v. Agri Stats, Inc., No. 0:23-cv-03009-JRT-JFD (D. Minn. May 7, 2026)).

Background. The DOJ described Agri Stats as a data-sharing and consulting company. It said Agri Stats compiles competitive information on prices, output, and costs gathered “directly from meat processors’ accounting systems” and then reports the compiled findings back to the meat processors. The DOJ said Agri Stats historically operated in the pork and turkey markets, but it currently focuses on the broiler chicken market.

The DOJ said Agri Stats and the meat processors have historically refused to make the same competitive information available to wholesale meat buyers like restaurants, grocery stores, and food distributors. According to the DOJ, “this one-sided information exchange reduced competition and enabled systematic prices increases and coordinated decisions about how much meat to produce.”

The Book of Agri Stats Reports included “Operations Profit Analysis” metrics related to meat processing operations profits per live pound, other profit, yielded margin over processing (YMOP), plant YMOP variance contributions, sales impact on operations profits, and live cost impact on operations profits.

Proposed settlement. The DOJ highlighted the following aspects of the proposed settlement. If approved by the court, the final judgment will require Agri Stats to stop reporting non-public pricing information and stop reporting production, cost, and labor data at the company or facility levels. The order would make the vast majority of information that Agri Stats distributes available to all domestic buyers on reasonable and non-discriminatory terms, to eliminate prior information asymmetry and increase market transparency. The order also places restrictions on the timeliness of information shared.

More specifically, Agri Stats must not report any sales data, as defined, whether or not it is anonymized. However, it may continue reporting “calculations in the Operations Profit Analysis” in conformity with the proposed final judgment and reporting to an information contributor on its own individual information.

The proposed settlement will permit Agri Stats’ subsidiary Express Markets Inc. (EMI) to continue providing its price reports substantially as usual. EMI reports are less detailed, and EMI was already providing them to anyone interested.

Agri Stats must otherwise “not receive or maintain” any sales data, as defined, except for use by Agri Stats’ audit team for calculations in the Operations Profit Analysis or reporting individual information to the contributor of that information. Except as permitted for EMI, any sales data Agri Stats receives must not identify the purchaser of the product by name or an identification field and “must not be accessible by Agri Stats account managers.”

Agri Stats must also not report or otherwise reveal:

• participant lists, i.e., the identity of any information contributor; however, it will not be prohibited from reporting an estimated percentage of the production volume pertinent to a given protein captured by a given Agri Stats report;

• information contributor rankings, including at the meat processor, business unit, or complex level, in any given metric;

• “flags,” but neither the proposed final judgment nor the stipulation and order defined this term;

• individual information, except as provided;

• individual contributor data, though it may report aggregated data and statistical data, as provided.

Maybe most importantly, Agri Stats must make all reporting and manuals available to any person in the United States at the same average price charged to single-plant meat processors, as further specified. Agri Stats must not require non-meat processor persons to contribute data or condition the purchase of any Agri Stats reporting on a requirement to purchase any other Agri Stats product or service; however, it may require meat processors to contribute data as a condition of their purchase.

The proposed final judgment also set forth detailed data confidentiality restrictions, but it does not prohibit Agri Stats from reporting feed formulation data (subject to conditions), broiler chicken, pork or turkey performance metrics, weekly Agri Stats Reports containing feed, yield, and performance data not otherwise prohibited, and new or additional types of reporting, provided they conform with the proposed final judgment, but Agri Stats must notify the United States, the monitor, and the plaintiff states.

Monetary terms provide for Agri Stats to pay $350,000 to the state plaintiffs for agreed apportionment among them. The state plaintiff Attorneys General may use the funds in their sole discretion for antitrust or consumer protection law enforcement purposes, including defraying the costs of experts, or deposit into a state antitrust consumer protection account.

The terms are detailed and must be read in the full text of the final judgment and stipulation for a complete understanding. The United States reserved the possibility of withdrawing its consent.

Compliance program. In addition to monitoring, Agri Stats must submit a written antitrust compliance policy to the United States and plaintiff states for approval by the United States in its sole discretion.

The Case is No. 0:23-cv-03009-JRT-JFD.

Judge: Tunheim, J.

Attorneys: Anna Wang, U.S. Department of Justice, for the U.S. Casey Kovarik, Office of the Attorney General, for State of California,. Charles G. White, II, North Carolina Department of Justice, for North Carolina, State of. Alisa Y. Lu (Hogan Lovells US LLP) for Agri Stats, Inc.

Companies: Agri Stats, Inc.

MainStory: TopStory Antitrust AntitrustDivisionNews GCNNews