-
Federal Judge Issues Continuing Summary Judgment Ruling In Turkey Price-Fixing Litigation, Narrowing Direct-Action Plaintiffs’ Claims For Trial
11/03/2026Following its July 7, 2026 summary judgment decision, which addressed the motions of certain other defendants, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois (Judge Sunil R. Harjani) issued another summary judgment decision on October 19, 2026 addressing the direct-action plaintiffs’ claims against the remaining defendants: various turkey processors and an industry benchmarking consultant. In re Turkey Antitrust Litigation, No. 19 C 8318 (N.D. Ill. Oct. 19, 2026). The Court expressly incorporated its July finding that the evidence supported an inference of an agreement to restrict supply and increase turkey prices, leaving only whether each remaining defendant joined that agreement.
The October ruling addressed only the remaining claims of the five original direct-action plaintiffs against the turkey processors and the industry consultant. The claims themselves were essentially the same in both rulings. Plaintiffs allege that the nation’s largest turkey processors conspired to coordinate production cuts and inflate turkey prices. They assert two Sherman Act § 1 theories: (1) a per se claim alleging an agreement to reduce supply; and (2) a rule-of-reason claim alleging that the exchange of competitively sensitive information through the industry consultant’s reports was an unreasonable restraint of trade.
Two of the processors (the “trial defendants”) will go to trial on the direct-action plaintiffs’ per se claims because of circumstantial evidence relating to production cuts and competitor communications. The Court determined that such evidence could permit a reasonable jury to find that the trial defendants joined the alleged agreement. This evidence included, as to one trial defendant, undisputed production cuts in 2008–2009 and 2012–2013 (combined with an internal spreadsheet of competitors’ planned production changes), direct exchanges of production plans with rival processors, internal reports on competitors’ plans gathered at National Turkey Federation (“NTF”) meetings, and a leadership role in the NTF where competitor cooperation was promoted. As to the other trial defendant, the evidence included quarterly data showing production cuts, a directive from an acquired company to cut poult placements by 15%, an employee confidentially sharing planned cuts of 6–7% with a competitor’s employee, and a received competitor’s email urging cooperation.
By contrast, the other two turkey processors and the industry consultant will not proceed to trial because the Court determined that the evidence showed, at most, awareness of competitors’ plans or ordinary benchmarking activity, but not conduct consistent with joining a conspiracy. The Court found that the record showed that, contrary to output reduction, one turkey processor increased production every year of the alleged conspiracy to meet demand from a key customer, and that its president’s questionable comments were not substantiated by subsequent conduct. The record also showed that the other turkey processor was losing money, exited the turkey business during the relevant period, had little documented contact with competitors, and used the industry consultant’s reports only to benchmark its own efficiency. For the industry consultant, the Court determined that the evidence showed that it did not sell turkey, its fees did not depend on processors’ profits, and its anonymized reports contained no demands or pricing suggestions.
The Court again rejected the theory that the industry consultant served as the “hub” of a hub-and-spoke conspiracy, holding that circulating anonymized benchmarking data does not make a third party a hub and finding insufficient evidence that the processors (the “spokes”) agreed among themselves to use the reports to cut output or raise prices. The rule-of-reason claims failed as to all defendants because the direct-action plaintiffs could not show a substantial anticompetitive effect; the aggregated, anonymized data bore little resemblance to the detailed, member-specific exchanges condemned in American Column & Lumber v. United States, 257 U.S. 377 (1921).
Denial of summary judgment is not a finding of liability, and the Court cautioned that the evidence against the trial defendants is not overwhelming; they may yet convince a jury that their conduct was not collusive. The Court will set a date for a consolidated trial of the direct-action plaintiffs’ remaining per se claims.
Antitrust Litigation