US Court Allows Frozen Potato Price-Fixing Claims to Move Forward
A US federal court has allowed key antitrust claims against four of North America’s largest frozen potato processors to proceed, rejecting attempts to dismiss allegations concerning the exchange of competitively sensitive market information.
The litigation involves Lamb Weston, McCain, J.R. Simplot and Cavendish, as well as market data provider Circana. The plaintiffs allege that the processors exchanged sales and production information through Circana’s PotatoTrack platform and used this information in connection with higher prices for frozen potato products.
According to a September 17 ruling by the US District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, PotatoTrack collected company-specific information including sales volumes, values, units and product types. Plaintiffs allege that participating processors received reports allowing them to compare their performance with data from the other companies.
The complaints cover frozen French fries, hash browns, potato puffs and other frozen potato products.
Judge Jeffrey I. Cummings found that the plaintiffs had plausibly alleged an unlawful exchange of information under Section 1 of the Sherman Act. The court also rejected Circana’s request to dismiss the claims against it and denied a separate motion from McCain Foods Limited.
The decision does not determine that the companies engaged in unlawful conduct. It allows the litigation to proceed beyond the dismissal stage, when the court considers whether the plaintiffs have made sufficiently plausible allegations to continue the case.
The defendants have been ordered to respond to the complaints by October 13, while a stay on discovery has been lifted. The parties are also expected to submit a proposed discovery schedule and an update on settlement discussions by October 27.
The plaintiffs allege that Lamb Weston, McCain, Simplot and Cavendish together account for about 98% of the US frozen potato products market. That market-share estimate forms part of the plaintiffs’ allegations and has not been independently established by the court.
