Media
September 15, 2026 / Law Alert

DOJ and states’ attorneys general pursue settlement over alleged egg price benchmark manipulation

On June 29, 2026, the U.S. Department of Justice, together with the attorneys general of 17 states, filed a civil antitrust complaint against, and proposed settlement with, three major egg producers: Cal-Maine Foods, Inc., Hickman’s Egg Ranch, Inc., and Versova-affiliated entities. The complaint alleges that the defendants coordinated bidding activity from June 2022 to March 2025 in order to artificially inflate egg price quotations published by Urner Barry Publications. The DOJ alleges that because Urner Barry’s quotations are widely used in egg supply contracts, the conduct increased prices throughout the supply chain and boosted the producers’ profits.

Alleged manipulation of the egg pricing benchmark

Unlike a traditional price-fixing scheme, where competitors allegedly agree on the price at which a product will be sold, the DOJ alleges that the producers indirectly fixed the price of eggs by colluding to manipulate the Urner Barry benchmark reporting system.

According to the complaint, the companies:

  • frequently submitted large numbers of bids immediately before Urner Barry updated its daily quotation;
  • coordinated bidding activity to create the appearance of stronger market demand and support higher benchmark prices;
  • submitted bids that were unlikely to result in completed purchases, suggesting that the bids were intended to influence benchmark reporting rather than satisfy legitimate business need; and
  • executed trades at premium prices and reported those transactions to Urner Barry, to support higher benchmark quotations.

The complaint also states that benchmark egg prices declined significantly after the defendants learned of the DOJ’s investigation in March 2025, which the DOJ cites as evidence that the coordinated conduct was intended to influence prices.

Proposed consent judgments impose restrictions on communications, bidding practices, and compliance

At the same time as the DOJ filed the complaint, the DOJ also filed proposed consent judgments that would resolve the matter without further litigation. If approved, the judgments will prohibit the companies from:

  • communicating or coordinating with competitors regarding bidding strategies, bid prices, timing, volumes, or transaction terms;
  • sharing certain supply, demand, or pricing information that may influence benchmark publications; or
  • communicating regarding bids or transactions that are not supported by legitimate business needs.

The proposed judgments would remain in effect for five years and require the companies to implement antitrust compliance programs, appoint antitrust compliance officers, conduct annual antitrust training and audits, monitor certain cooperative and industry association meetings, and provide periodic certifications regarding compliance. These measures are intended to prevent recurrence of the alleged conduct and restore competition to the shell egg market, says the DOJ.

Tunney Act review and public comment process

The proposed settlements are subject to review under the Antitrust Procedures and Penalties Act, commonly known as the Tunney Act. Under that statute, a court must determine whether a proposed antitrust consent decree is in the public interest before entering a final judgment.

First, the DOJ filed a Competitive Impact Statement, which triggers a 60-day public comment period. In this case, the DOJ filed its statement on
Aug. 4, 2026. Members of the public now have the opportunity to submit written comments to the DOJ regarding the proposed settlements. After the public comment period, the DOJ may seek entry of the judgments. The court, however, retains final authority to determine whether the settlements serve the public interest.

Implications for the agricultural industry

This case underscores the DOJ’s continued focus on food affordability and competition in agricultural markets, and highlights the increased scrutiny of communications among competitors in industries that rely on benchmark pricing.

The proposed settlements also illustrate the importance of robust antitrust compliance programs and training, particularly for companies that participate in cooperatives, trade associations, or benchmark-driven markets. Agricultural businesses, and their counsel, should evaluate whether their compliance programs adequately address communications involving market demand, pricing benchmarks, and other competitively sensitive information that could affect published prices.

Helen is an associate with a strong foundation in litigation and regulatory law gained through hands-on experience in both judicial and private settings. She can be reached at 614.227.2111 or [email protected].