Did you buy pork products from Tyson, Hormel or other major sellers?
You likely paid too much due to an illegal price-increasing scheme by food corporations. Fill out the form to find out your consumer rights to potential compensation »
An investigation has revealed that for years, major food corporations have illegally increased the price of pork, forcing millions of U.S. consumers to pay artificially high prices for bacon, ham, sausage and any other pork product. If you purchased pork from any of these suppliers, you may be entitled to your money back: Smithfield Foods Inc., JBS, Hormel Foods Corp., Tyson Foods, Clemens Food Group LLC and Agri Stats Inc. which own the following popular brands, among others:
- Ball Park Franks
- Craft Meats San Francisco
- Hillshire Farm
- Jimmy Dean
- Lloyd's Barbeque
- Nathan's Famous
ABOUT THE CONSPIRACY
This investigation revealed that since 2014, pork producers such as Tyson, Hormel and others colluded to knowingly reduce pork production to artificially inflate prices. The pork producers engaged in a conspiracy that has cost American consumers millions of dollars over the years.
The pork industry rakes in $20 billion dollars a year, and the companies involved in this investigation control the vast majority of the market. Hagens Berman believes that this is a classic conspiracy meant to extract extra profits from hard working Americans.
YOUR CONSUMER RIGHTS
The lawsuit seeks reimbursement for the fraudulent price increases pushed onto consumers. Hagens Berman believes that those who unknowingly paid high prices for pork deserve compensation for the greed and wrongdoing of these major food corporations.
TOP CONSUMER RIGHTS FIRM
Hagens Berman is one of the most successful consumer litigation law firms in the U.S. and has achieved more than $320 billion in settlements for consumers in lawsuits against food corporations, automakers, big banks and others. Hagens Berman recently won a similar suit against the dairy industry, winning $52 million for purchasers who had been forced to pay artificially high prices. Your claim will be handled by experts in consumer law.
NO COST TO YOU
There is no cost or fee whatsoever involved in joining this case. In the event Hagens Berman or any other firm obtains a settlement that provides benefits to class members, the court will decide a reasonable fee to be awarded to the class' legal team. In no case will any class member ever be asked to pay any out-of-pocket sum.
Attorneys announced a second settlement in the case on behalf of pork consumers totaling $75 million. The settlement with Smithfield Foods Inc. is now pending the court’s preliminary approval. Attorney representing the class of consumers Shana Scarlett said, “Cases of this nature set the law straight that massive corporations – including those responsible for feeding the vast majority of American families – should not be allowed to get away with illegally conspiring to raise prices. Antitrust violations pose serious consequences for everyday consumers, and often they have absolutely no knowledge of the scheme behind the price tag. We are pleased to have reached this settlement and will continue to litigate this case against the remaining defendants.” The total settlements reached in the case now totals $95 million.
On Apr. 2, 2021, Judge John R. Tunheim of the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota granted preliminary approval of a settlement on behalf of consumers who purchased pork products at inflated prices since 2009. Of the total defendants in this lawsuit against major pork producers, JBS USA Food Company, JBS USA Food Company Holdings and Swift Pork Company have now reached settlements. The firm looks forward to continuing litigation against the case’s remaining defendants.
Chief Judge John R. Tunheim denied defendants’ motions to dismiss federal antitrust claims the class action, allowing the case for consumers to continue. In the 87-page order and opinion, Judge Tunheim wrote, “The Court will deny the Defendants’ joint Motion to Dismiss because Plaintiffs’ Amended Complaints sufficiently plead parallel conduct and a continuing violation to state plausible Sherman Act claims.”