Jareb Gleckel received his J.D. magna cum laude from Cornell Law School and his B.A.... Jareb Gleckel received his J.D. magna cum laude from Cornell Law School and his B.A. magna cum laude from Amherst College. His academic writing focuses on the questions surrounding new food products, specifically plant-based and cell-based meat, and is available on SSRN. He is a founding editor of Oyez's newest platform about U.S. Supreme Court arguments, Oral Argument 2.0. He also writes guest columns for Justia's Verdict and performs legal research for the Animal Law Podcast. Read more about Jareb Gleckel Read More
Audio By Carbonatix
There are lots of legal strategies for protecting animals, but the oldest in the book — which has stood the test of time — is targeting the pocketbooks of the industries exploiting them. The case we’re covering this month fits the bill. It is a case alleging that pork producers violated antitrust laws.
Source: Animal Outlook/YouTube
Antitrust laws protect the marketplace from anti-competitive conduct. To do so, they prohibit competitors from conspiring with each other, unfairly increasing their profits to the detriment of consumers. Conspiracies can take on many shapes and sizes, but one of the simplest examples is price fixing. Imagine that it costs 50 cents for a company to grow and sell an ear of corn. If all the corn producers are competing, Producer A might sell the corn for $5.00, at which point Producer B will offer it for $3.00, undercutting Producer A and still making a profit. But if instead of competing, Producers A and B conspire to fix the price of corn at $5.00, consumers will overpay for corn.
In the case at issue, dozens of plaintiffs have alleged that pork producers, including Hormel, Smithfield, and Tyson Foods, conspired by exchanging “detailed, competitively sensitive, and non-public information about prices, capacity, sales volume, and demand.” According to the plaintiffs, they accomplished this using a specialized information-sharing service called Agri Stats, which “allowed them to monitor each other’s production and thereby control pork supply and price in violation of antitrust law.”
As is often the case in litigation, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss — a motion that, if granted, would have eliminated plaintiffs’ claims early on. Successful motions to dismiss not only win cases for defendants, but they do so before the parties exchange information in an expensive process called discovery. Even if a judge partially grants a motion to dismiss, this can limit the claims available to the plaintiffs, and therefore limit the defendants’ liability.
In this case, the pork producers made three arguments in their motion to dismiss. First, they argued that plaintiffs could not sue at all under the statute at issue, the Packers and Stockyards Act.
Second, they argued that some claims should be dismissed because they fell outside the statute of limitations. The statute of limitations places a time limit on bringing claims, and according to the pork producers, some of the claims were too old. If old claims get dismissed, then even if pork producers ultimately lose, they will not lose on as many claims, so they will not have to pay out as much money.
Third, the pork producers argued that the claims should only apply to products that are entirely made of pork; in other words, they should not apply to mixed products in which pork is one ingredient. Like the statute of limitations argument, this argument would significantly reduce the defendants’ liability by limiting the scope of the lawsuit.
Long story short: the Court rejected the motion to dismiss in its entirety. So, the antitrust case against the pork producers will move full steam ahead.

Easy Ways to Help the Planet:
Get your favorite articles delivered right to your inbox! Sign up for daily news from OneGreenPlanet.
Help keep One Green Planet free and independent! Together we can ensure our platform remains a hub for empowering ideas committed to fighting for a sustainable, healthy, and compassionate world. Please support us in keeping our mission strong.

Comments: