SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
price fixing
'Stinks of Rotting Meat': Critics Warn Trump DOJ Settlement Would Legalize Price-Fixing
"Get ready for even higher prices for chicken, turkey, and pork," said one antitrust attorney.
May 08, 2026
US President Donald Trump's Justice Department moved Thursday to settle a Biden-era antitrust lawsuit against the analytics firm Agri Stats, proposing an agreement that critics say would effectively give the stamp of federal approval to meat industry price-fixing schemes.
The Justice Department—now headed by Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche, formerly Trump's personal lawyer—hailed the proposed settlement as a "historic" win over a company whose "business model directly raised the price of chicken, turkey, and pork in local grocery stores across our nation." But critics said the agreement, which must undergo review by a federal judge, would do nothing substantial to rein in price-fixing in the meat industry.
Lee Hepner, senior legal counsel for the American Economic Liberties Project, said the deal "stinks of rotting meat," noting that the settlement was proposed just days before the case was set to go to trial.
"No way does it address the harms," Hepner said of the 79-page settlement. "Agri Stats spent decades hiking prices on over 90% of processed meat in the country. Now they're being told to exercise some discretion going forward."
"It's a gut punch to those who worked on this case for four years thinking it might actually deter these price fixing services from cropping up in every other industry," Hepner added.
The Biden administration brought the antitrust lawsuit against Agri Stats in September 2023, accusing the company and its subsidiary EMI of "collecting, integrating, and distributing competitively sensitive information related to price, cost, and output among competing meat processors."
"While distributing troves of competitively sensitive information among participating processors, Agri Stats withholds its reports from meat purchasers, workers and American consumers, resulting in an information asymmetry that further exacerbates the competitive harm of Agri Stats’ information exchanges," the Biden DOJ said.
"This settlement legalizes meat price-fixing—it just says you have to bring the giant retailers and distributors in on the game."
The Trump Justice Department's settlement would require Agri Stats to "make the vast majority of information" it distributes "available to all interested domestic purchasers on reasonable and non-discriminatory terms," along with several other conditions.
But the settlement states that EMI is not otherwise "prohibited... from continuing to provide EMI Price Reports in substantially the same manner as it did as of April 24, 2026."
Agri Stats noted in a statement Thursday that it "denied all allegations" of illegal conduct and "has admitted no wrongdoing" as part of the settlement. Agri Stats' lead counsel in the case called the deal "a win" for both the company and consumers—a claim that antitrust advocates rejected, calling the agreement blatantly one-sided in the corporation's favor.
"This settlement legalizes meat price-fixing—it just says you have to bring the giant retailers and distributors in on the game," wrote Basel Musharbash, managing attorney at Antimonopoly Counsel. "Get ready for even higher prices for chicken, turkey, and pork."
The proposed Agri Stats settlement is the latest favorable deal that Trump's Justice Department—which is in the grip of lobbyists with ties to the president—has cut with a major corporation accused of illegal price-fixing.
Last November, as Common Dreams reported, the Justice Department agreed to settle a Biden-era lawsuit filed against the real estate software company RealPage, which was accused of an "unlawful scheme to decrease competition among landlords in apartment pricing and to monopolize the market for commercial revenue management software."
RealPage welcomed the settlement, noting that the agreement included "no financial penalties, damages, or findings or admissions of wrongdoing."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Why You Paid $29.99 for Those Levi's, Not $25.47: Amazon Price-Fixing Scheme Exposed
Evidence released by California's attorney general shows "blatant price-fixing" by the retail giant, said one consumer advocate.
Apr 21, 2026
California's top law enforcement official on Monday released a legal filing packed with evidence that Amazon is leveraging its dominance of the online retail market to artificially drive up prices for a range of goods, fueling a nationwide affordability crisis while padding its profits.
The filing was first submitted to the San Francisco Superior Court in February as part of California Attorney General Rob Bonta's broader legal effort to halt what he described as Amazon's "illegal price-fixing scheme." At the time, the filing was heavily redacted, obscuring specific examples of Amazon conspiring with vendors and competing retailers to drive up prices for apparel, pet treats, fertilizer, and other items. California's case against Amazon is set to go to trial next year.
“The evidence we've uncovered is clear as day: Amazon is working to make your life more unaffordable," Bonta said in a statement. "The company is price-fixing, colluding with vendors and other retailers to raise costs for Americans beyond what the market requires—beyond what is fair."
"Amid a crisis of affordability," Bonta added, "Amazon is illegally working to rake in profits by making sure consumers have nowhere else to turn to for lower prices. We’ll see them in court."
The filing identifies three specific tactics Amazon uses to fix prices—"breaking the price match," "increasing the competitor retail price," and "removing the product"—and offers concrete examples, backed by email evidence, of the company deploying each method.
In one instance from 2021, Amazon alerted Levi’s that Walmart.com had some of the clothing company's pants listed at a price of $25.47-$26.99—which Amazon indicated was too low for its liking. At Amazon's request, Levi's connected with Walmart, which agreed to price one of the identified products at $29.99. Amazon then matched that higher price for Levi's Easy Khaki Classic fit on its platform, locking in the cost increase for online shoppers.
"This should make your blood boil. Amazon is using its market power to coerce major retailers to hike prices," said Lee Hepner, senior counsel at the American Economic Liberties Project. "It is pouring kerosene on an affordability crisis. Forcing price hikes to preserve market share is illegal monopoly maintenance, clear as day."
Bonta's filing also details a case in which Amazon, the vendor GlobalOne, and the pet supplies company Chewy agreed to fix prices on more than 10 pet treat products.
As Bonta's office summarized:
The plan was written in an email between Amazon and its vendor, GlobalOne. For its part, Amazon would raise GlobalOne’s Canine Naturals pet treat prices to get Chewy to follow, then GlobalOne would “reach out to Chewy” to let them know that Amazon was increasing the pricing and “would ask that [Chewy] follow.” In other words, if Chewy agreed, Amazon would increase its retail pricing for the Canine Naturals pet treats and Chewy would match the price increase. The plan materialized. Amazon told GlobalOne that the pricematch override was in place, and to “let Chewy know to update [pricing] immediately.” That same day, GlobalOne confirmed the “ones that went up on Amazon immediately went up on Chewy [happy face emoji] … Overall this looks like it’s working!” The result of Amazon, Chewy and GlobalOne’s price fixing agreement was to increase the retail prices of over ten Canine Naturals pet treat products on Amazon and Chewy.
"The examples above are not outliers and are not exhaustive," Bonta's office stressed in a statement. "They are illustrative of countless interactions—spanning years and product lines—in which Amazon, vendors, and Amazon’s competitors agree to increase and fix the prices of products on other retail websites. As Amazon told one vendor explicitly: 'I am very determined to help you hunt the disrupters in the market.'"
Amazon has been coordinating with vendors and major retailers — including Target, Walmart, Chewy, and Home Depot — to raise prices across the market.
This is a widespread scheme spanning years across markets — and it’s illegal.
We’re fighting to stop it. pic.twitter.com/p77N6P0kV3
— Rob Bonta (@AGRobBonta) April 20, 2026
Stacy Mitchell, co-director of the Institute for Local Self-Reliance, said Bonta's filing shows "blatant price-fixing" by Amazon that is "almost certainly the tip of a much bigger price-fixing operation."
In a piece published at Washington Monthly on the same day that Bonta's largely unredacted filing was released, Mitchell highlighted a Biden-era federal complaint accusing Amazon of using "sophisticated AI-driven pricing systems that draw on torrents of real-time data" to raise prices. (That case, backed by 17 states, is set to go to trial next March.)
"Here’s how it allegedly worked: Amazon’s anti-discounting algorithm immediately matched competitors’ price changes to the penny, but never undercut them," Mitchell wrote. "When a rival offered a discount, Amazon’s algorithm matched it; when rivals raised prices, Amazon’s algorithm followed. This denied competing retailers a crucial tactic for luring customers from Amazon. If other retailers could never offer lower prices, Amazon’s roughly 200 million paying subscribers had little reason to shop elsewhere."
"These allegations point to a novel form of monopoly power: The ability of a dominant platform to use algorithms to lift prices across an entire market," Mitchell added.
Keep ReadingShow Less
JBS Doesn’t Deserve a Place in Our Markets or on Our Plates
Even in industrial meat production, an industry known for its corruption and poor conditions, JBS stands out for the scope and severity of its violations.
Aug 20, 2025
Earlier this summer, JBS, the world’s largest meatpacking corporation, was approved to list on the New York Stock Exchange. The move was celebrated in business media as a milestone of corporate growth and a testament to the leadership of JBS’ 33-year-old CEO of their US division Wesley Batista Filho. But behind the headlines lies a far more troubling story, one of exploitation, impunity, and environmental devastation that should not be ignored.
Turning a blind eye to abuses at a company as large and powerful as JBS is dangerous, with the harms extending far beyond the meatpacking industry. Consumers, advocates, and investors must stop normalizing this behavior. We have the power and the responsibility to demand better.
JBS has built its empire not through innovation or sustainability, but through exploitation. Price fixing, child labor, wage theft, bribery, tax avoidance, deforestation, animal cruelty—these are not isolated scandals. They are core ingredients of JBS’ business model. And while many corporations would work to correct and address their abuses, JBS has repeatedly treated legal penalties and reputational damage as just another cost of doing business.
Even in industrial meat production, an industry known for its corruption and poor conditions, JBS stands out for the scope and severity of its violations. The company recently agreed to pay over $80 million to settle a beef price-fixing lawsuit. Earlier this year, the company was cited for illegally employing migrant children, some as young as 13, on overnight cleaning shifts in its slaughterhouses. Meanwhile, workers across its global operations report being injured, silenced, or discarded when they speak up.
We must stop sending the message that corporations can endanger workers, break the law, and destroy the environment without consequence, as long as they remain profitable.
A recent federal lawsuit filed by Salima Jandali, a former safety trainer at JBS’ Greeley, Colorado plant, alleges that she faced racial and religious harassment, was retaliated against for raising safety concerns, and was pressured to falsify injury reports. Her allegations closely mirror a separate class action lawsuit filed by Black workers at another JBS facility in Pennsylvania who describe enduring racist slurs, being passed over for promotions, and working in unsafe conditions.
Beyond the factory floor, JBS has long been linked to illegal deforestation and environmental destruction in the Amazon, both directly through its supply chains and indirectly through pressure on local ecosystems. The company’s climate footprint is staggering, with greenhouse gas emissions that rival those of entire countries. And yet, instead of reckoning with this impact, JBS continues to expand production and avoid accountability.
In Brazil, where the company is headquartered, the recent passage of most of the so-called “devastation bill” further weakens environmental safeguards and accelerates the damage. Now that President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva approved the bill, even with some environmental restrictions, it continues to grant free rein to agribusiness giants like JBS that profit from the destruction of forests and the displacement of Indigenous communities.
This is not a case of a few bad actors or isolated scandals. JBS has thrived because of weak enforcement, political influence, and a financial system that rewards short-term gains over long-term responsibility.
Just months before its New York Stock Exchange (NYSE) debut, JBS subsidiary Pilgrim’s Pride made a $5 million donation to the Trump-Vance Inaugural Committee. This is the context in which JBS was allowed to access US capital markets. Even though top proxy advisory firms, including Glass Lewis and Institutional Shareholder Services, urged shareholders to vote against the listing, citing serious governance concerns and lack of transparency, their warnings were ignored, and just this June, JBS began trading on the NYSE.
JBS now generates over $39 billion a year from its US operations alone, profits that are often routed through tax havens in Luxembourg, Malta, and the Netherlands. And when caught breaking the law, JBS often faces only minor consequences that rarely match the scale of the harm.
We must stop sending the message that corporations can endanger workers, break the law, and destroy the environment without consequence, as long as they remain profitable. There is another path forward. Consumers, advocates, and investors need to reject this status quo and demand change.
That starts with consumers actively choosing not to buy JBS products. Investors can divest from JBS and urge their asset managers to do the same. Universities, pension funds, and retirement plans can reexamine whether their portfolios are supporting a company with this kind of track record. At the same time, policymakers must push for stronger corporate accountability, not just in meatpacking, but across industries that harm people and the planet.
JBS should not be rewarded with more money, more access, and more influence. Instead, we must make JBS the example and let it serve as a warning about the costs of putting profit above all else. The future of our food system, our environment, and our communities depends on drawing the line and holding it.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular