The proposed settlement would force Agri Stats to halt detailed pricing and production reports shared exclusively with major meat processing companies.
The Department of Justice (DOJ) reached a proposed settlement with Agri Stats Inc., requiring the data and consulting company to stop distributing competitively sensitive information among the nation’s major meat processors, officials announced on May 7.
The agreement, which was filed in federal court in Minnesota, seeks to address longstanding government concerns that the firm’s practices allowed processors to coordinate production and pricing, increasing costs for consumers nationwide.
Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche and antitrust division leaders said the proposed settlement was an effort to foster competition and ease pressures on household budgets.
“A stable and affordable food supply is critical to our country’s well-being,” Blanche said in a statement. “This Department of Justice is laser-focused on making everyday life affordable for all Americans.”
Agri Stats, headquartered in Fort Wayne, Indiana, gathers detailed data on prices, output, costs, and other metrics from processors’ systems. It then standardizes and redistributes the information to participating companies through reports and meetings, according to the DOJ. Meat buyers such as grocers, restaurants, and distributors allegedly had no such access.
Agri Stats Inc. did not immediately respond to a request for comment from The Epoch Times.
Acting Assistant Attorney General Omeed A. Assefi of the DOJ’s Antitrust Division said that the American people do not have to tolerate business models that increase their cost of living.
“The Antitrust Division’s mission is to use the antitrust laws to protect American consumers from inflated prices,” Assefi said.
“This settlement delivers immediate relief in the meat section of grocery stores across our nation.
“When companies decide certain information is too sensitive to share with the broader market, but not too sensitive to share with their closest competitors, that is a significant red flag that competition is being harmed.”
The complaint argued that this one-sided exchange reduced rivalry and supported systematic price hikes and output decisions for decades, particularly in the broiler chicken sector, while also affecting the pork and turkey markets historically.
