10 states and the FTC v. Syngenta and Corteva

1:22-cv-00828
September 29, 2022
Not judged
United States, North Carolina

Local authorities, Government or State Assessment Agencies
Federal Trade Commission (FTC), California, Colorado, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Minnesota, Nebraska, Oregon, Texas, Wisconsin,
Syngenta, Corteva
No description

Civil court
Fungicide, , Herbicide, Nematicide, Azoxystrobin, Mesotrione, Metolachlor, Rimsulfuron, Oxamyl, Acetochlor
Final judgment against Defendants, declaring, ordering, and adjudging: That each Defendant’s conduct violates Section 5(a) of the FTC Act… Section 3 of the Clayton Act…Section 1 and 2 of the Sherman Act… applicable law of the 10 plaintiffs States. That each Defendant is permanently enjoined from engaging in its unlawful conduct. That each Defendant is permanently enjoined from engaging in similar and related conduct in the future as to all crop-protection products and active ingredients…
District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, United States

FTC and 10 US States sue Syngenta and Corteva for using illegal pay-to-block scheme to inflate prices for farmers. The complaint alleges that manufacturers pay distributors to exclude competitors’ more affordable generic options for essential farming products. It claims that these big pesticide firms run so-called “loyalty programs” in which distributors only get paid if they limit business with competing manufacturers. Under this scheme, Syngenta and Corteva make more money than they would if they had to compete fairly with generics. Syngenta has monopoly and market power in the United States with respect to azoxystrobin fungicide; and mesotrione and metolachlor herbicides and Corteva to the herbicide rimsulfuron, the insecticide and nematicide oxamyl and the herbicide acetochlor. The complaint seeks to shut down this illegal pay-to-block scheme and restore competition to affected markets.