The long-running pork price-fixing saga has reached a turning point. A Minnesota federal judge has given preliminary approval to an $85 million settlement resolving consumers’ antitrust claims that Tyson Foods Inc. conspired with other pork producers and a data firm to inflate pork prices by manipulating supply.

U.S. District Judge John R. Tunheim granted the motion on Friday, describing the agreement between Tyson and the consumer indirect purchaser plaintiffs as “fair, reasonable, and in the best interests of the class.” The deal, he noted, was the product of arm’s-length negotiations conducted by seasoned attorneys on both sides.

“Tyson does not oppose the motion,” Judge Tunheim wrote, emphasizing that the court’s decision aims to preserve efficiency and maximize compensation for consumers.

The judge also ruled that formal notice to the class can be deferred, citing potential cost savings that would ensure more funds go directly to claimants.

$85 Million Deal Adds to $208 Million Total Recovery

Consumers first asked the court on Oct. 1 to approve the $85 million agreement, which follows earlier settlements with JBS USA, Smithfield Foods, and Hormel Foods, bringing total recoveries in the sweeping multidistrict litigation to nearly $208 million.

The settlement covers Tyson Foods, Tyson Fresh Meats Inc., and Tyson Prepared Foods Inc. According to court filings, the payout reflects Tyson’s 20% share of the alleged overcharges, equating to roughly $4.25 million per market share point — a result class counsel described as “exceptional.”

“This sum is fair and reasonable in light of Tyson’s market position,” the plaintiffs’ attorneys stated, noting that it provides “significant relief” to those impacted by years of inflated pork prices.

The only remaining defendants in the consumer indirect buyers’ case are Agri Stats Inc. and Triumph Foods LLC.

A Seven-Year Legal Battle Over Pork Price Inflation

The pork antitrust litigation, launched in 2018, accuses major meat producers of colluding to limit supply and inflate market prices using shared data provided by Agri Stats, a benchmarking firm based in Fort Wayne, Indiana.

Plaintiffs allege that by exchanging competitively sensitive information, companies coordinated production levels and stabilized prices across the industry — a scheme that, if proven, violates the Sherman Antitrust Act.

After surviving multiple motions to dismiss, the case entered discovery in 2023, uncovering thousands of pages of data and internal communications. In March 2024, Judge Tunheim denied most summary judgment motions filed by Tyson and other producers, clearing the path for trial before the new settlement offer emerged.

Controversy Over Judge’s Clerk Clouds the Case

The litigation took a surprising turn in April, when defendants moved to recuse Judge Tunheim and vacate his rulings. They alleged that one of his law clerks previously worked at firms representing plaintiffs and allegedly had ties to another firm pursuing “Big Agriculture” litigation.

The defendants also claimed the clerk had interacted with social media posts related to the pork price-fixing case, raising questions about impartiality. Judge Tunheim has not yet ruled on the recusal request, according to court records.

Counsel and Next Steps

The consumer indirect buyers are represented by Gustafson Gluek PLLC attorneys Daniel E. Gustafson, Daniel C. Hedlund, Michelle J. Looby, Joshua J. Rissman, Abou B. Amara Jr., and Gabrielle M. Kolb, along with Shana E. Scarlett, Steve W. Berman, Breanna Van Engelen, Elaine T. Byszewski, and Abigail D. Pershing of Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP.

Tyson Foods is represented by Tiffany Rider Rohrbaugh, Lindsey Strang Aberg, Denise L. Plunkett, and Jarod Taylor of Axinn Veltrop & Harkrider LLP, alongside Scott M. Rusert and A. Christopher Brown of Taft Stettinius & Hollister LLP.

Neither side has commented publicly on the decision.

If the Tyson $85M settlement approval receives final court approval, it will mark one of the most significant victories yet for consumers in the decade-long battle over America’s pork prices — a reminder that even industry giants must eventually answer for the true cost of their empire.