Price-fixing

The 2025 Corporate Rap Sheet

The regulatory enforcement system is one of the many things the second Trump Administration has thrown into chaos. The DOGE assault decimated staffing at many agencies. The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau has been all but dismantled. Regulators such as the Environmental Protection Agency are abandoning key parts of their mission. Independent agencies are losing their independence as Trump asserts a right to fire commissioners for no good reason. The Securities and Exchange Commission is dismissing investigations initiated under Biden in a manner that suggests cronyism. Convicted corporate criminals favored by Trump are receiving unjustified pardons.

At the same time, agencies such as the Federal Trade Commission and the Federal Communications Commission, now headed by MAGA zealots, are using their powers to pressure or punish companies perceived to be enemies of the administration. The Justice Department, at the behest of Trump, is extracting substantial monetary settlements from universities facing dubious allegations that they tolerated anti-Semitism.

The news is not all bad. Portions of the federal regulatory and prosecutorial system continue to operate in a fairly normal manner. For example, False Claims Act cases involving federal contractor abuses are getting resolved on a regular basis.

Even more encouraging is the fact that state and local enforcement remain strong in much of the country, while private litigation in the form of class action lawsuits remains robust. Below are some of the key cases of the year collected for our Violation Tracker database, as well as some major foreign cases collected for Violation Tracker Global.

Amazon’s Cancellation Policies. The FTC has not been solely occupied with ideological warfare. In September the agency ordered Amazon to pay a $1 billion penalty and provide $1.5 billion in refunds to customers who had difficulty cancelling their Prime subscriptions.

Discover Bank’s Credit Card Practices. The Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, a bank regulator not usually associated with major enforcement actions, ordered Discover Bank, now owned by Capital One, to pay a $150 million penalty and $1.2 billion in restitution to millions of merchants. Discover collected improperly high interchange fees by misclassifying consumer credit cards as commercial.

Credit Suisse and Tax Evasion. Credit Suisse, now owned by UBS, pleaded guilty, entered into a non-prosecution agreement with the Justice Department for other charges, and was fined $510 million for maintaining accounts in Singapore on behalf of U.S. taxpayers who were using those accounts to evade U.S. taxes and reporting requirements.

Walgreen’s Invalid Opioid Prescriptions. In one of the year’s most significant False Claims Act cases, which also involved alleged violations of the Controlled Substances Act, Walgreens Boots Alliance reached a $300 million settlement with the DOJ to resolve allegations that it illegally filled millions of invalid prescriptions for opioids and other controlled substances and then sought payment for many of those invalid prescriptions from Medicare and other federal health care programs.

Hino Motors and Emissions Cheating. The biggest environmental case of the year was announced in January while Joe Biden was still in office. Hino Motors, a subsidiary of Toyota, paid criminal and civil penalties totaling $1.6 billion to resolve federal and California state allegations that the company submitted fraudulent emissions testing data for diesel engines imported into the United States.

Kimberly-Clark and Fraudulent Testing. Kimberly-Clark paid over $40 million in fines and compensation to resolve federal allegations that it conducted fraudulent testing on surgical gowns marketed as providing the highest level of protection against fluid and viruses.

Turning now to matters handled by state attorneys general and state regulatory agencies, there were more than 30 such cases which resulted in a penalty of $50 million or more. For example:

DuPont et al. and PFAS. DuPont, Chemours, and Corteva, all of which emerged from the old E.I. DuPont de Nemours and Co., together agreed to pay $2.6 billion to remedy long-standing contamination stemming from PFAS originating from four industrial sites in New Jersey.

Google and Privacy. The Texas Attorney General announced that Google would pay $1.4 billion to resolve allegations it unlawfully tracked and collected users’ private data regarding geolocation, incognito searches, and biometric data.

UnitedHealth Group and Unnecessary Insurance. HealthMarkets Inc., a subsidiary of UnitedHealth Group, was ordered to pay $165 million in penalties and restitution in a case in which the Massachusetts Attorney General accused the company of misleading consumers into buying unnecessary health insurance products.

As for private litigation, more than 30 class action lawsuits with settlement amounts in excess of $50 million received final court approval this year. They include:

Blue Cross Blue Shield Anti-Competitive Practices. Blue Cross Blue Shield Association agreed to pay $2.8 billion to settle litigation brought by medical providers alleging that BCBS policies prevented its members from competing against each other.

Wage-Fixing. Tyson Foods paid $115 million and Perdue Farms paid $60 million to resolve allegations that they participated in a conspiracy among poultry companies to keep wage levels low.

Apple and Privacy. Apple agreed to pay $95 million to settle litigation alleging its Siri voice-activated software violated the privacy of users by eavesdropping on conversations.

The largest penalty outside the U.S. documented in Violation Tracker Global this year was the $3.4 billion fine imposed on Google by the European Commission for distorting competition in the advertising technology industry. The EC also brought large fines against Apple ($575 million) and Meta Platforms ($230 million).

Major penalties were seen in the area of privacy. The Irish Data Protection Commission fined TikTok $599 million, while the French privacy agency CNIL fined Google $378 million and e-commerce giant SHEIN Group $174 million.

The biggest environmental case outside the U.S. was a $140 million penalty against Thames Water in the UK for serious wastewater violations.

The main conclusion from all these cases is that misconduct on the part of large corporations remains pervasive around the world. In the United States, the future of regulatory enforcement at the federal level is uncertain, yet state and local regulators, along with plaintiffs’ lawyers, seek to fill the gap.

Is the DOJ Serious About Investigating Beef Price-Fixing?

Apparently shaken by the Democratic gains in this month’s elections, Donald Trump has changed his tune on the economy. He still tries to get us to believe everything is marvelous, but at the same time he has rolled out a series of proposals designed to give the impression he is addressing the affordability crisis.

Most of these initiatives do not amount to much. The rollback of tariffs on some food products is easing an aspect of inflation Trump himself caused. The idea of getting banks to offer 50-year home mortgages would result in modest monthly savings for borrowers while causing them to pay much more in interest over the life of the loan and slow the rate at which they build equity in their homes. It is unclear whether the deals he has been making with pharmaceutical companies will result in significant cost reductions for consumers. The suggestion that Obamacare subsidies be replaced with payments to health savings accounts would result in the proliferation of junk insurance policies and financial ruin for those with serious health conditions.

What these initiatives also have in common is that they do not challenge corporate interests in any significant way. The one possible exception to this is Trump’s call for a probe of price fixing in the beef industry.

Earlier this month, Trump put out a social media post asking the Justice Department to “immediately begin an investigation of into the Meat Packing Companies who are driving up the price of Beef through illicit collusion, Price Fixing, and Price Manipulation.”

So far, so good. But Trump went on to refer to “Majority Foreign Owned Meat Packers,” suggesting that his real aim was xenophobic. A related White House press release was headlined “Trump Administration Cracks Down on Foreign-Owned Meat Packing Cartels.” The release went on to name what it called the Big Four meat packers—”JBS (Brazil), Cargill, Tyson Foods, and National Beef”—noting that two of them “are either foreign-owned or have significant foreign ownership and control.” (National Beef is controlled by Brazil’s Marfrig.)

It is not surprising that Trump is willing to criticize foreign corporate interests when the country involved has been the target of his scorn because of the supposed mistreatment of its former president Jair Bolsonaro, whose supporters mounted a January 6-style attack on the seat of government.

This is not to deny that the Brazilian beef giants have engaged in anti-competitive practices, yet there is no indication that their market behavior has been significantly worse than that of U.S.-based Cargill and Tyson Foods.

All four companies have been entangled in legal disputes over alleged collusion and price-fixing, yet those cases have involved private litigation rather than government enforcement actions. JBS has already paid out $160 million in settlements in class action suits filed in U.S. courts by different categories of beef purchasers.

Additional cases brought against JBS as well as Cargill, Tyson Foods, and National Beef have been consolidated in a multidistrict action now centered in federal court in Minnesota. The litigation alleges that from at least 2015 the four companies agreed among themselves to reduce live cattle purchasing and slaughter volumes for the purpose and effect of increasing their margins.

The plaintiffs charge that the companies accomplished and perpetuated this agreement through collusion at trade association conferences and industry events between executives and key employees, and through ensuing collusive relationships. This anti-competitive activity, the plaintiffs say, caused them to pay artificially and illegally inflated prices for boxed beef, which in turn elevated prices for consumers.

It is not at all clear that the Trump Administration will be as aggressive as the plaintiffs’ lawyers in attacking beef industry collusion. Attorney General Pam Bondi responded to Trump’s tweet by saying an investigation was already underway. Yet the DOJ’s Antitrust Division has been less than dynamic under Trump 2.0. No significant price-fixing action against a corporation has been resolved this year.

The seriousness of the Administration’s move against the big meatpackers was also put into question by the ridiculous statements of Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent suggesting that high beef prices are the result of reductions in the supply of cattle caused by diseased animals brought into the country by illegal immigrants.

In the end, the DOJ’s beef investigation may turn out to be no more effective in addressing affordability than any of the other gimmicks Trump has offered.

What’s Behind Rising Beef Prices?

Those who enjoy a breakfast of steak and eggs are feeling better about half of their plate. Egg prices have come down sharply in the past year. But now beef prices are the problem, soaring well beyond the level of other foods.

Most analyses of the situation point to two primary culprits. The first is drought, which parched grazing land and caused hay prices to spike. When these conditions emerged a few years ago, ranchers responded by slaughtering cattle sooner. Initially, this increased supply and pushed prices down. But now the herds are smaller and output is down, putting upward pressure on prices.

The other culprit are tariffs, especially those Trump capriciously imposed on Brazil, a major source of U.S. red meat imports, to punish the country for prosecuting former president Jair Bolsonaro in connection with a January 6-type attempted coup.

A federal court in Minnesota is focusing on another cause: collusion among the major beef producers to keep prop up prices. Starting in 2020, groups of beef buyers filed several lawsuits that came to be consolidated in a multidistrict action against the giants of the industry.

The litigation alleged that from at least 2015 Cargill, JBS, Tyson Foods, and National Beef Packing Company agreed among themselves to reduce live cattle purchasing and slaughter volumes for the purpose and effect of increasing their margins. The plaintiffs alleged that the companies accomplished and perpetuated this agreement through collusion at trade association conferences and industry events between executives and key employees, and through ensuing collusive relationships. This anti-competitive activity, the plaintiffs argued, caused them to pay artificially and illegally inflated prices for boxed beef, which in turn elevated prices for consumers.

Plaintiffs have achieved a series of substantial settlements. In 2022 JBS agreed to pay $52.5 million to direct purchaser plaintiffs. Earlier this year, JBS said it would pay $83.5 million to settle allegations it had conspired with other processors to suppress the prices paid to ranchers. Earlier this month, Cargill and consumer indirect purchaser plaintiffs announced that they had reached a settlement, but details have not yet been announced.

Along with conspiring to keep prices high, the big beef producers have been accused of colluding to depress wages of their employees. A 2022 lawsuit filed in Colorado has resulted in another series of multi-million-dollar settlements, including a $72 million payout by Tyson Foods and $55 million by JBS. Cargill and National Beef Packing coughed up another $43 million.

JBS, Tyson Foods, and Cargill have also been connected to illegal child labor via the hiring of underaged workers by Packers Sanitation Services to do dangerous cleaning work at their plants.

Despite their lawsuit payouts, it is likely that the beef giants have not completely mended their ways and are still finding ways to push up prices and push down wages. Drought and Trump’s tariffs are not the whole story behind rising beef prices. Plain-old corporate greed is also playing a role.

The Corporate Lawbreakers Involved in the Port Labor Dispute

The decision by the International Longshoremen’s Association to strike ports on the East and Gulf Coasts has prompted numerous media outlets to produce unflattering stories about union president Harold Daggett and what is depicted as his lavish lifestyle.

I have not seen much reporting on the ILA’s adversaries—the corporate members of the employer group known as the United States Maritime Alliance. The group’s website lists about 40 members, among which are some of the largest multinational shipping corporations and terminal operators in the world.

These companies have become more familiar to me as I have been gathering data for the new Violation Tracker Global database, which my colleagues and I will release soon. USMA members show up frequently in data from regulatory agencies in various countries. Here is a preview of what Violation Tracker Global will reveal about these shippers.

One of the USMA members is an American subsidiary of Norway’s Wallenius Wilhelmsen Group. Since 2010, units of the shipping company have racked up regulatory penalties equal to more than US$440 million. Most of these were for anti-competitive practices. The biggest case was a $256 million penalty imposed by the European Commission in 2018 for participating in an illegal cartel controlling the market for vehicle shipping. Wallenius Wilhelmsen has also been fined in Australia, Brazil, China, Japan, Mexico, South Africa, South Korea and the United States.

Another USMA member is a unit of Japan’s Kawasaki Kisen Kaisha, known as K Line. Since 2010, K Line has been penalized more than $240 million for similar anti-competitive practices. The largest case was a $67 million criminal fine imposed by the U.S. Justice Department for participation in a conspiracy to fix prices, allocate customers, and rig bids for shipping services for roll-on, roll-off cargo, such as cars and trucks. K Line has also been fined in Australia, Canada, Chile, China, India, Italy, Japan, Mexico, Singapore, South Africa, and South Korea.

One of the biggest USMA members is Denmark’s Maersk, which participates directly and through its subsidiaries APM Terminals and Hamburg Sud. Since 2010, Maersk and all its subsidiaries have racked up about $45 million in penalties. The largest portion of that was a 2012 U.S. case in which Maersk Line Limited had to pay the federal government $31.9 million to resolve allegations that it submitted false claims in connection with contracts to transport cargo in shipping containers to support U.S. troops in Afghanistan and Iraq. Among other things, Maersk units were fined by Russian authorities for anti-competitive practices and by British authorities for an offshore oil spill.

Also on the membership list is CSAV, a Chilean shipping company whose fines in Violation Tracker Global amount to $25 million. Those include competition cases brought by the European Commission and in China, Italy, Mexico, South Africa, South Korea, and the United States. France’s CMA CGA has total fines of just under $25 million. It was also fined by the European Commission and in Brazil, France, Italy, the United Kingdom, and the United States.

Opponents of the ILA are arguing that the union’s fight against automation will impede efficiency and lead to higher shipping costs. Yet, as the information in Violation Tracker Global will show, the shippers themselves have already been boosting costs through price-fixing and other anti-competitive practices across their global operations.

Violation Tracker Global will be available starting on October 8 at:
https://violationtrackerglobal.goodjobsfirst.org/

Attacking Price Manipulation

Throughout Joe Biden’s time in office, critics have complained he has not done enough to address high grocery prices. Now that his replacement as the Democratic presidential nominee has come forth with a plan to deal with the problem, many of those same critics are accusing Kamala Harris of going too far.

A wide range of pundits are particularly scandalized at Harris’s critique of price-gouging. It is perfectly valid to question whether her policies would be effective, but many commentators are trotting out simplistic and outdated economic principles to claim that corporate price manipulation is non-existent.

These believers in the supremacy of market forces are apparently unaware that the food sector is a hotbed of anti-competitive practices. This is especially true in the meat industry, where a small number of dominant corporations have had to pay out hundreds of millions of dollars in fines and settlements to resolve allegations that they collude to keep prices high.

Take the case of JBS, the giant Brazilian corporation that owns U.S. companies such as the poultry producer Pilgrim’s Pride and the beef producer Swift. As shown in Violation Tracker, JBS and its subsidiaries have paid out over $200 million in class action antitrust lawsuits since 2021. Pilgrim’s Pride was also sentenced to pay $107 million in criminal penalties after pleading guilty to federal charges of participating in a conspiracy to fix prices and rig bids for broiler chicken products.

Tyson Foods, another poultry goliath, has paid out over $120 million in class action settlements over the past three years, including one case in which it had to hand over $99 million. In the pork industry, Smithfield Foods, owned by the Chinese corporation WH Group, has paid around $200 million in price-fixing settlements.

Price-fixing conspiracies have also been alleged in the tuna industry, in which StarKist paid a criminal penalty of $100 million, as well as in milk processing, peanut processing and other food sectors. In 2020 the National Milk Producers Federation agreed to pay $220 million to settle litigation alleging it sought to boost prices through a program to reduce the number of dairy cows. There was even a $28 million settlement involving a mushroom marketing cooperative.

Aside from their illegal collusion on prices, food companies have been accused of entering into illegal agreements designed to suppress wages. A federal court in Oklahoma recently gave preliminary approval to a settlement in which Pilgrim’s Pride will pay $100 million. Other poultry processors such as Tyson and Perdue previously agreed to pay a total of tens of millions of dollars more.

Price-fixing is not exactly the same thing as price-gouging. The first involves illegal agreements among purported competitors, while the other may be committed by a powerful company acting on its own. Price-gouging can be illegal in certain circumstances under state law, especially if it happens during an emergency. Yet it is not, alas, illegal for companies to jack up prices in most circumstances.

That’s why all chief executives of food companies are not being led away in handcuffs. Yet it is all the more reason for the federal government to devise innovative ways to get corporations to bring down prices that escalated through market manipulation of one form or another.

Targeting the Poultry Conspirators

High food prices have been one of the most contentious issues of the past few years, causing many people to remain negative about the U.S. economy even as other indicators have improved. Grocery inflation has several cases, but one that does not receive enough attention is the ability of large corporations to set prices at will.

Price escalation is possible because of the enormous amount of concentration in the food sector. Not only can major producers hike up prices on their own, they conspire with their few competitors to do so in tandem. This is known as price-fixing, and since the passage of the Sherman Act of 1890 the practice has been illegal under federal law. States bring prosecutions as well.

One state that has been particularly aggressive in this arena is Washington. Its Attorney General, Bob Ferguson, has targeted the poultry industry, which is believed to be a hotbed of anti-competitive practices. In 2021 Ferguson’s office sued 19 companies said to account for 95 percent of the broiler chickens sold in the entire country, alleging they conspired to restrain production, manipulate price indices, rig bids and exchange proprietary information with one another. The defendants included familiar names such as Tyson Foods, Pilgrim’s Pride and Perdue Farms.

Over the past two years, Ferguson has racked up an impressive record. Last April, 14 of the corporate defendants agreed to pay settlements totaling $35 million. The largest shares came from Pilgrim’s Pride ($11 million), Tyson ($10.5 million) and Perdue ($6.5 million).

Since then, Ferguson has kept up the pressure on the other defendants. Most recently, House of Raeford Farms agreed to a $460,000 settlement. The two remaining holdouts, Foster Farms and Wayne-Sanderson Farms, are scheduled to go on trial later this year.

They may change their minds about going to court. All of the settling defendants have agreed to cooperate with Ferguson’s office in producing evidence that can be used in that trial. Those defendants have also signed consent decrees under which they commit to changing their practices and acknowledge that the AG can seek additional fines if they fail to do so.

Ferguson wants to have even stronger tools at his disposal. Recently, he joined with several state legislators to propose legislation that would increase the maximum penalty for price-fixing and other anti-competitive practices.

At the same time the big poultry companies work to keep prices high, they have been accused of conspiring to keep pay low. The U.S. Justice Department has been targeting the industry for the improper exchange of compensation date, a practice that amounts to wage-fixing. One company, George’s Inc. agreed last year to pay $5.8 million to DOJ. The feds are seeking other settlements.

There has also been private litigation on this issue, resulting in large settlements such as a $29 million payout by Pilgrim’s Pride and $12 million by Simmons Foods.

It remains to be seen whether the federal and state prosecutors, together with plaintiffs’ lawyers, can get the poultry industry to stop colluding on prices and wages. Yet these cases should serve as a reminder of the extent to which food inflation is the result of corporate power and greed.

Targeting the Price Fixers

The Justice Department and the Federal Trade Commission have been promoting the adoption of new guidelines that would give them a greater ability to block anti-competitive mergers. Now DOJ may also be taking a tougher stance with regard to the other main branch of antitrust enforcement: prosecuting price-fixing conspiracies that harm consumers.

DOJ’s Antitrust Division has just announced the resolution of a case brought against generic drug giant Teva Pharmaceuticals and a smaller Indian producer called Glenmark Pharmaceuticals for conspiring to fix the price of pravastatin, a cholesterol medication. Teva was also charged with anti-competitive behavior with regard to two other drugs. Teva was compelled to pay a criminal penalty of $225 million and to donate drugs worth $50 million to humanitarian organizations. Glenmark was penalized $30 million.

Along with the fines, which in Teva’s case is well above the norm in DOJ Antitrust Division actions, the agency imposed a novel penalty: requiring the two companies to divest their pravastatin business line. And although the criminal charges were softened by allowing Teva and Glenmark to enter into deferred prosecution agreements, the DOJ included a blunt warning that “both companies will face prosecution if they violate the terms of the agreements, and if convicted, would likely face mandatory debarment from federal health care programs.”

Forcing a company to leave a business in which it has engaged in misconduct can be a more effective punishment than monetary penalties, which large corporations can usually absorb with little difficulty. This is an especially appropriate approach in prosecuting companies that have shown themselves to be repeat offenders.

Among the more than 240 companies shown in Violation Tracker to have faced criminal charges brought by the Antitrust Division since 2000, there are about half a dozen which have been penalized more than once. One of those is the Swiss bank UBS, which in 2011 paid $160 million to resolve allegations of engaging in anti-competitive practices in the municipal bond market but was offered a non-prosecution agreement. The following year, UBS was accused of manipulating the LIBOR interest rate benchmark and paid penalties totaling $500 million. While a subsidiary had to plead guilty, the parent company was offered another non-prosecution agreement.

Antitrust enforcers should leave the use of financial penalties to private litigation. As I showed in a report called Conspiring Against Competition published earlier this year, class action lawsuits brought by the victims of price fixing have yielded $55 billion since 2000, more than twice as much as the penalties collected by federal regulators.

Among the most frequently sued companies were Teva and its subsidiaries, which paid out a total of $1.4 billion in 19 different class actions. Most of these involved an indirect form of price fixing in which companies collude to delay the introduction of lower-cost generic alternatives to expensive brand-name drugs.

Government regulators should use their power not just to put a dent in an egregious price-fixer’s bottom line but to force the company out of a market in which it failed to follow the rules.

Targeting the Infant Formula Giants

The Agriculture Department’s Women, Infants and Children (WIC) program is one of the many forms of social assistance that could be seriously affected by Republican efforts to cut supposedly wasteful federal spending as a condition of approving an increase in the debt ceiling.

If there is waste in WIC, it’s not being caused by the low-income women receiving nutritional aid. A more likely culprit are the corporations providing the infant formula distributed through the program.

The Federal Trade Commission has revealed that it is investigating whether suppliers have been colluding in their bids for contracts awarded by the state agencies that administer WIC. Any such collusion would be made easier by the fact that the infant formula market in general and the WIC portion of it are dominated by three large companies.

Two of the three—Abbott Laboratories, which produces the Similac brand, and Nestlé, which sells the Gerber brand—have acknowledged that they are involved in the investigation, while Reckitt Benckiser has declined to comment.

This is not the first time these companies have come under regulatory scrutiny. Back in 2003 Abbott and a subsidiary paid a total of $600 million in civil and criminal penalties to resolve charges that the company made illegal payments to institutional purchasers of its tube-feeding products and then encouraged the customers to overbill government health programs.

Over the past two decades, Abbott and various subsidiaries have paid another $98 million in various False Claims Act cases brought by federal and state prosecutors. This does not include hundreds of millions more paid in false claims and antitrust penalties by the portions of Abbott that were spun off as AbbVie in 2013.

Nestlé’s infant formula business has a history of controversy for another reason. During the mid-1970s Nestlé was made the target of a campaign protesting the marketing of infant formula in poor countries. Activists from organizations such as INFACT and progressive religious groups charged that the aggressive marketing of formula by companies like Nestlé was causing health problems, in that poor mothers often had to combine the powder with unclean water and frequently diluted the expensive formula so much that babies remained malnourished.

Nestlé initially responded to the boycott of its products with a counter-campaign, seeking to discredit its critics. The company later changed its posture, agreeing to comply with a marketing code issued by the World Health Organization. In the years that followed, Nestlé was frequently criticized for failing to comply with the code and for engaging in various questionable practices.

In 2019 Reckitt Benckiser, based in the United Kingdom, paid over $1.3 billion in penalties in connection with the improper marketing of the opioid Suboxone. It paid another $50 million to the FTC to resolve allegations of engaging in a deceptive scheme to thwart the introduction of a low-cost generic alternative to that drug.

Reckitt entered the infant formula business through the 2017 acquisition of Mead Johnson, producer of Enfamil. In 2012 Mead Johnson had paid $12 million to settle allegations by the SEC that the company violated the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act through improper payments to healthcare professionals at government-run hospitals in China.

Given these rap sheets, along with controversies over recalls and shortages, it will not come as a surprise if the FTC finds that these companies engaged in bid-rigging. The remedy should involve an effort to attract more suppliers to the WIC infant formula market, especially honest ones.

Conspiring Against Competition

A federal judge in Minnesota recently granted final approval to a $75 million settlement between Smithfield Foods and plaintiffs alleging that the company was part of a conspiracy to fix the prices of pork products. This came a week after the Washington State Attorney General announced $35 million in settlements with a group of poultry processors.

A couple of weeks ago, a federal judge in New York approved a $56 million settlement of a class action lawsuit in which two drug companies were accused of conspiring to delay the introduction of a lower-cost generic version of an expensive drug for treating Alzheimer’s Disease.

All these court actions are part of an ongoing wave of illegal price-fixing conspiracies by large companies throughout most of the U.S. business world. The scope of the antitrust violations is revealed in a report I just published with my colleagues at the Corporate Research Project of Good Jobs First. The report, entitled Conspiring Against Competition, draws on data collected from government agency announcements and court records for inclusion in the Violation Tracker database.

We looked at over 2,000 cases resolved over the past two decades, including 600 brought by federal and state prosecutors as well as 1,400 class action and multidistrict private lawsuits. The corporations named in these cases paid a total of $96 billion in fines and settlements.

Over one-third of that total was paid by banks and investment firms, mainly to resolve claims that they schemed to rig interest-rate benchmarks such as LIBOR. The second most penalized industry, at $11 billion, is pharmaceuticals, due largely to owners of brand-name drugs accused of illegally conspiring to block the introduction of lower-cost generic alternatives.

Price-fixing happens most frequently in business-to-business transactions, though the higher costs are often passed on to consumers. Apart from finance and pharmaceuticals, the industries high on the penalty list include: electronic components ($8.6 billion in penalties), automotive parts ($5.3 billion), power generation ($5 billion), chemicals ($3.9 billion), healthcare services ($3.5 billion) and freight services ($3.4 billion).

Nineteen companies (or their subsidiaries) paid $1 billion or more each in price-fixing penalties. At the top of this list are: Visa Inc. ($6.2 billion), Deutsche Bank ($3.8 billion), Barclays ($3.2 billion), MasterCard ($3.2 billion) and Citigroup ($2.7 billion).

The most heavily penalized non-financial company is Teva Pharmaceutical Industries, which with its subsidiaries has shelled out $2.6 billion in multiple generic-delay cases.

Many of the defendants in price-fixing cases are subsidiaries of foreign-based corporations. They account for 57% of the cases we documented and 49% of the penalty dollars. The country with the largest share of those penalties is the United Kingdom, largely because of big banks such as Barclays (in the interest-rate benchmark cases) and pharmaceutical companies such as GlaxoSmithKline (in generic-delay cases).

Along with alleged conspiracies to raise the prices of goods and services, the report reviews litigation involving schemes to depress wages or salaries. These include cases in which employers such as poultry processors were accused of colluding to fix wage rates as well as ones in which companies entered into agreements not to hire people who were working for each other. These no-poach agreements inhibit worker mobility and tend to depress pay levels—similar to the effect of non-compete agreements employers often compel workers to sign.

Despite the billions of dollars corporations have paid in fines and settlements, price-fixing scandals continue to emerge on a regular basis, and numerous large corporations have been named in repeated cases.

Higher penalties could help reduce recidivism, but putting a real dent in price-fixing will probably require aggressive steps to deal with the underlying structural reality that makes it more likely to occur: excessive market concentration.

Pay for Delay

Forty years ago, federal policymakers thought they had found a solution to the problem of escalating prescription drug prices. The Hatch-Waxman Act of 1984 made it easier for generic manufacturers to bring to market lower-cost alternatives to brand-name medicines whose patent protection was expiring.

Fast forward to 2023. Recently, a federal judge in New York approved a $54 million class action settlement between plaintiffs led by a police union health plan and two drug companies accused of participating in an improper agreement to delay the introduction of a generic version of the Alzheimer’s drug Namenda. In 2020 another group of plaintiffs in a related case received a settlement of $750 million.

Once hailed as heroes that would restore consumer-friendly competition to the pharmaceutical industry, many generic producers instead became conspirators in what are known as “pay for delay” schemes to extend the market domination of costly brand-name products.

The extent of this degeneration is documented in data I have been collecting for an expansion of Violation Tracker and that will be analyzed in a report to be published next week. That expansion covers class action lawsuits designed to combat illegal price-fixing by large companies in a wide range of industries. This private litigation often follows actions brought by federal and state prosecutors.

Cases involving pay for delay, which amounts to an indirect form of price-fixing, make up a substantial portion of the litigation challenging anti-competitive practices. I was able to identify more than 100 settlements over the past two decades in which generic and brand-name producers paid out nearly $8 billion. Cases brought by federal agencies or state attorneys general resulted in another $2 billion in fines and settlements.

The company that has paid out the most is generics giant Teva Pharmaceuticals, whose 19 settlements (including those involving subsidiaries) total $2.5 billion. AbbVie’s total is $1.5 billion in 21 cases. Five other companies—GlaxoSmithKline, Sun Pharmaceuticals, Pfizer, Novartis and Bristol-Myers Squibb each have totals between $500 million and $800 million.

The largest single penalty came in 2015 in an action brought by the Federal Trade Commission accusing Cephalon Inc. of illegally blocking generic competition to its blockbuster sleep-disorder drug Provigil. The settlement required Teva Pharmaceuticals, which had acquired Cephalon in 2012, to make a total of $1.2 billion available to compensate purchasers, including drug wholesalers, pharmacies, and insurers, which overpaid because of Cephalon’s illegal conduct.

High drug costs are one of the factors contributing to inflation in the United States. Unlike energy prices, which are highly susceptible to swings in international markets, drug prices are largely under the control of manufacturers, due to patents and the unwillingness (until recently) of the federal government to allow Medicare to negotiate with the industry.

Big Pharma, not satisfied with those benefits, has frequently crossed the line into illegality through these pay-for-delay schemes. The $10 billion in penalties paid by the industry is in all likelihood far less than the economic gains it has reaped by artificially prolonging the market life of overpriced medications. It’s something to keep in mind during the next expensive visit to the pharmacy.

The report, Conspiring Against Competition, will be published on April 18.