Pork Industry Giants Cite DOJ Letter to Bolster Defense Against Antitrust Claims

Major pork producers, including Hormel, JBS, and Tyson, have invoked a recent statement from the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) to support their defense in an ongoing antitrust lawsuit. The companies claim that the DOJ’s position, presented in a federal court in Minnesota, could weaken allegations that they engaged in unlawful anticompetitive practices by sharing industry data.

According to a statement from the DOJ, the sharing of competitively sensitive information among companies can, in certain cases, violate antitrust laws. However, the DOJ did not specifically accuse the companies of engaging in price-fixing, a direct form of anticompetitive conduct. Instead, it highlighted concerns about data-sharing practices under the “rule of reason” approach, which assesses whether the overall competitive effects of such practices harm consumers.

Read more: Pork Industry Faces Legal Challenges as Antitrust Lawsuits Against Seaboard Foods Dismissed

The pork producers argue that the DOJ’s lack of a “per se” claim, a legal standard that targets practices deemed inherently harmful without further inquiry, indicates that their actions do not rise to the level of clear-cut anticompetitive conduct. Per a statement from the DOJ, the antitrust framework only recognizes “rule of reason” and “per se” standards, with no grounds for claims outside of these classifications. By pointing to the absence of a “per se” violation in the DOJ’s filing, the companies suggest that their actions should not be interpreted as a straightforward breach of antitrust law.

The DOJ’s clarification that even aggregated data, such as average pricing metrics, could potentially be problematic underscores the regulatory scrutiny facing data-sharing arrangements. The pork industry leaders contend that without a specific allegation of price-fixing, they remain within lawful bounds.

The case brings renewed focus to data-sharing practices in agriculture and their potential competitive implications.

Source: Swine Web