reported metric. Quartile reporting also must satisfy minimum participation requirements.
The settlement further requires Agri Stats to make its reports available to non-processors on terms comparable to those offered to meat processors. Regulators viewed broader access as a key step toward reducing the exclusive nature of the information exchanges that were at the center of the lawsuit.
Compliance and monitoring requirements
The proposed decree establishes a robust oversight framework. A court-appointed monitor, selected by the DOJ, will oversee Agri Stats’ compliance with the judgment. The monitor will have authority to review reports, customer agreements, data practices, and compliance efforts and will provide periodic reports to federal and state enforcement agencies. The monitorship is expected to last up to seven years, subject to review by the government.
Agri Stats also must implement a formal antitrust compliance program, including employee training, whistleblower protections, data-security measures, restrictions on the identification of participating companies, and mandatory disclosure of potential violations. The company must provide regulators with updated reports, customer information, and compliance certifications.
In addition to the injunctive relief, Agri Stats agreed to pay $ 350,000 to the states of Minnesota, California, North Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, and Utah within 60 days of filing the proposed Final Judgment. The company also agreed to bear the cost of publishing the required notice under the Antitrust Procedures and Penalties Act.
What happens next?
The settlement must still undergo review under the Tunney Act, which governs antitrust consent decrees entered by the federal government. As part of that process, the proposed Final Judgment and a Competitive Impact Statement was published in the Federal Register on June 5, 2025. Interested parties will have 60 days to submit written comments regarding the settlement. After considering any public comments, the District Court may enter the
Final Judgment if it determines that the settlement is in the public interest.
Practical takeaways for agribusinesses and industry participants
Agricultural companies that participate in benchmarking, information-sharing, or industry reporting programs should consider the following lessons from the Agri Stats settlement:
• Benchmarking programs remain under antitrust scrutiny. The DOJ continues to view exchanges of competitively sensitive information— particularly pricing, production, capacity, output, and profitability data— as a significant antitrust risk. Companies should periodically evaluate whether industry datasharing practices could raise similar concerns.
• Trade associations and third-party consultants are not immune from enforcement. The case demonstrates that antitrust scrutiny extends beyond competitors themselves and can reach consultants, data providers, and other intermediaries that facilitate information exchanges.
• Antitrust compliance programs are increasingly important. The settlement requires formal compliance policies, employee training, whistleblower protections, and monitoring. Agribusinesses should consider whether their own compliance programs adequately address informationsharing risks.
• Expect continued enforcement in food and agriculture markets. The DOJ has expressly stated that the settlement is intended to restore competition in broiler chicken markets and prevent similar practices in pork and turkey markets, signaling ongoing enforcement attention in the protein sector.
Jay represents agriculture producers, cooperatives, and other agribusinesses in antitrust and consumer protection matters. He can be reached at 202.778.3021 or jlevine @ porterwright. com.
PAGE 10