-
Court Grants Motion To Dismiss In Antitrust Case Alleging Boycott Conspiracy Of Crop Protection Products
09/24/2024On September 13, 2024, in a multidistrict litigation, the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri granted defendants’ motion to dismiss plaintiffs’ class action claim of a conspiracy to artificially inflate prices in the United States for seed and crop protection chemicals (“Crop Inputs”), such as fungicides, herbicides, and insecticides. In re Crop Inputs Antitrust Litigation, 21-md-02993-SEP (E.D. Mo. Sept. 13, 2024). Central to plaintiffs’ claim is an alleged scheme by defendants, including the largest wholesalers and retailers of Crop Inputs in the United States, to impede pricing transparency by boycotting electronic sales platforms for Crop Inputs in violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act. Plaintiffs were direct and indirect purchasers of Crop Inputs, like farmers, who also brought claims for violation of state antitrust and consumer protection statutes.
Critical to the Court’s reasoning to dismiss the claim was that plaintiffs did not present sufficient factual allegations to (i) show “concerted, parallel conduct” among defendants, and (ii) “rebut the inference that defendants’ conduct served their respective individual, legitimate business interests.”
Since plaintiffs alleged a multi-level distribution scheme from the Crop Input manufacturers to the wholesalers and retailers, plaintiffs needed to “plausibly plead a web of horizontal and vertical agreements” between defendants to boycott the sales platforms. As such, plaintiffs had to show agreements within each horizontal level (e.g., among all manufacturer defendants) in addition to vertically among the three levels (e.g., between wholesaler defendants and retailer defendants). According to the Court, although an explicit arrangement is not required, it is not sufficient to simply state a pattern of parallel conducts by defendants without plus factors, such as “shared motive to conspire, actions taken against self-interest [of the defendant], and a substantial amount of [] communication” between the parties, to show implicit arrangements to collude.
The Court found plaintiffs lacked examples of defendants’ parallel conduct and “frequently engage[d] in impermissible group pleading,” in addition to providing generic and conclusory allegations. For example, plaintiffs alleged, “[r]etailers who failed to comply with the group boycott were penalized by defendants.” However, the Court found plaintiffs failed to identify all but one defendant that had penalized a retailer. To which, the Court explained is a “generalization” of defendants that deprived them of their right to know what illegal actions they committed (i.e., how defendant is tied to the conspiracy).
Rather than alleging a web of agreements, the Court found plaintiffs had strung together dissimilar events involving only some defendants, each of whom had plausible alternative explanations. For example, the Court noted it was “unsurprising” for an established retailer to “independently encourage its customers to refrain from doing business with an emerging retail competitor” since that behavior would be a “rational” decision to protect its business interest. In addition, the Court took notice of the absence of any communication among defendants to show coordination of conduct.
Ultimately, the Court dismissed the federal antitrust claims with prejudice since plaintiffs failed to show coordinated conduct among defendants to plead a boycott conspiracy, deficiencies that plaintiffs were aware of and had an opportunity to sufficiently supplement in their consolidated amended complaint. Since plaintiff’s federal antitrust claims were dismissed, the Court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state law antitrust claims, which were dismissed without prejudice and so plaintiffs will have another chance to plead their case in state courts.
