Agri Stats settlement signals major shift for information sharing in meat processing markets

Special thanks to summer associate Regina Loayza for her work on this article.

In a closely watched antitrust case with significant implications for the poultry, pork, and turkey industries, Agri Stats, Inc. has agreed to a proposed settlement with the U.S. Department of Justice and several states that would fundamentally reshape how the company collects, analyzes, and distributes industry data. The matter, United States v. Agri Stats, Inc., is pending before the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota.

Background of the case

Agri Stats is a data-sharing and consulting company that provided services in the pork, turkey, and chicken sectors. According to the DOJ, Agri Stats collected detailed information directly from processors’ accounting systems, including data relating to prices, production levels, costs, and profitability. The company then standardized that information and redistributed it to participating processors through reports, benchmarking tools, and in-person meetings.

In September 2023, the DOJ filed a Sherman Act Section 1 lawsuit against Agri Stats, alleging that the company facilitated the exchange of competitively sensitive information among broiler chicken, pork, and turkey processors. The states of Minnesota, California, North Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, and Utah later joined the action. The complaint alleged that Agri Stats and its processor participants agreed to exchange detailed non-public information regarding prices, output, costs, and other key business metrics and that the exchange resulted in reduced competition, stabilized prices, and contributed to reduced production across multiple protein markets.

Key terms of the settlement

On May 15, 2026, the DOJ filed a Corrected Stipulation and Order notifying the court of the proposed settlement. Under the agreement, Agri Stats must begin complying with substantial portions of the proposed Final Judgment even before final court approval. Certain reporting, data handling, and compliance provisions must be implemented within 90 days of the stipulation.

The proposed Final Judgment imposes extensive restrictions on the company’s data-sharing practices. Most notably, Agri Stats must discontinue its traditional sales report books and is generally prohibited from collecting, maintaining, or reporting sales-price data, subject to limited exceptions. The decree also prohibits several reporting features that regulators viewed as facilitating competitor coordination, including participant lists, rankings of processors, and “flags” that revealed how many companies contributed to particular metrics.

In addition, Agri Stats may no longer report individual processor-level information except in narrowly defined circumstances. Future reports will generally be limited to aggregated or statistical data that satisfy confidentiality thresholds designed to prevent participants from identifying competitors’ information. For many reports, data must reflect contributions from at least three processors, with no single processor accounting for more than 70% of the reported metric. Quartile reporting also must satisfy minimum participation requirements.

The settlement further requires Agri Stats to make its reports available to non-processors on terms comparable to those offered to meat processors. Regulators viewed broader access as a key step toward reducing the exclusive nature of the information exchanges that were at the center of the lawsuit.

Compliance and monitoring requirements

The proposed decree establishes a robust oversight framework. A court-appointed monitor, selected by the DOJ, will oversee Agri Stats’ compliance with the judgment. The monitor will have authority to review reports, customer agreements, data practices, and compliance efforts and will provide periodic reports to federal and state enforcement agencies. The monitorship is expected to last up to seven years, subject to review by the government.

Agri Stats also must implement a formal antitrust compliance program, including employee training, whistleblower protections, data-security measures, restrictions on the identification of participating companies, and mandatory disclosure of potential violations. The company must provide regulators with updated reports, customer information, and compliance certifications.

In addition to the injunctive relief, Agri Stats agreed to pay $350,000 to the states of Minnesota, California, North Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, and Utah within 60 days of filing the proposed Final Judgment. The company also agreed to bear the cost of publishing the required notice under the Antitrust Procedures and Penalties Act.

What happens next?

The settlement must still undergo review under the Tunney Act, which governs antitrust consent decrees entered by the federal government. As part of that process, the proposed Final Judgment and a Competitive Impact Statement was published in the Federal Register on June 5, 2025. Interested parties will have 60 days to submit written comments regarding the settlement. After considering any public comments, the District Court may enter the Final Judgment if it determines that the settlement is in the public interest.

Practical takeaways for agribusinesses and industry participants

Agricultural companies that participate in benchmarking, information-sharing, or industry reporting programs should consider the following lessons from the Agri Stats settlement:

• Benchmarking programs remain under antitrust scrutiny. The DOJ continues to view exchanges of competitively sensitive information—particularly pricing, production, capacity, output, and profitability data—as a significant antitrust risk. Companies should periodically evaluate whether industry data-sharing practices could raise similar concerns.
• Trade associations and third-party consultants are not immune from enforcement. The case demonstrates that antitrust scrutiny extends beyond competitors themselves and can reach consultants, data providers, and other intermediaries that facilitate information exchanges.
• Antitrust compliance programs are increasingly important. The settlement requires formal compliance policies, employee training, whistleblower protections, and monitoring. Agribusinesses should consider whether their own compliance programs adequately address information-sharing risks.
• Expect continued enforcement in food and agriculture markets. The DOJ has expressly stated that the settlement is intended to restore competition in broiler chicken markets and prevent similar practices in pork and turkey markets, signaling ongoing enforcement attention in the protein sector.

Jay represents agriculture producers, cooperatives, and other agribusinesses in antitrust and consumer protection matters. He can be reached at 202.778.3021 or jlevine@porterwright.com.