Tyson Foods, the largest meat producer in the United States, has agreed to pay $82.5 million to settle a proposed class-action lawsuit brought by grocers and other businesses that accused the company of conspiring to inflate beef prices by artificially restricting supply.

The proposed settlement, disclosed this week in U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota, represents the second major resolution in the direct-purchaser portion of the sprawling beef price-fixing litigation known as In re Cattle and Beef Antitrust Litigation.

The Allegations at the Heart of the Case

The lawsuit alleges that Tyson and several competitors engaged in a coordinated scheme to fix prices for retail-ready beef products in the United States from 2015 through 2022. Plaintiffs claim the companies artificially restricted supply and coordinated pricing strategies to inflate the cost of beef at the expense of businesses and consumers.

The case was originally filed as a class action on behalf of "direct purchasers" — companies that bought beef products directly from processors like Tyson Foods. These direct purchasers include regional grocery chains, wholesale distributors, and institutional food service providers.

Among the named plaintiffs are Pennsylvania-based Redner's Markets and Mississippi-based R&D Marketing, both of which claim they paid inflated prices for beef products during the alleged conspiracy period.

A Pattern of Settlements

The $82.5 million settlement with Tyson follows an earlier resolution in the case. JBS USA, another leading U.S. beef processor, previously agreed to pay $52.5 million to settle similar claims from direct purchasers. Combined, the two settlements total $135 million, though the litigation is far from over.

Two major defendants remain in litigation: Cargill and National Beef. Both companies have not yet reached settlements with the direct purchasers and continue to vigorously contest the allegations in court.

"This settlement allows us to move forward and continue focusing on our business operations while the broader litigation continues."

— Tyson Foods spokesperson

Tyson's Broader Legal Exposure

The beef price-fixing settlement is just one piece of Tyson's sprawling antitrust exposure. The Arkansas-based company has also settled related price-fixing claims from consumers in the beef litigation for $55 million in a separate resolution.

Additionally, Tyson separately agreed this year to pay $85 million to settle a proposed consumer class-action lawsuit accusing it of conspiring with rivals to inflate pork prices. The pork price-fixing allegations follow a similar pattern to the beef case, with plaintiffs claiming the major meat processors coordinated to restrict supply and drive up prices.

What This Means for Grocery Prices

For consumers, the series of settlements raises troubling questions about how much they may have overpaid for meat products over the past decade. While class-action settlements rarely result in meaningful individual payouts, they do serve as a form of accountability for alleged anticompetitive behavior.

The beef industry has undergone significant consolidation over the past several decades, with four major processors — Tyson, JBS, Cargill, and National Beef — now controlling approximately 85% of the U.S. market. This concentration has drawn increasing scrutiny from regulators and consumer advocates who argue it gives the companies outsized power to influence prices.

The Road Ahead

With Cargill and National Beef still fighting the allegations, the beef price-fixing litigation is expected to continue for months, if not years. The remaining defendants have denied any wrongdoing and argue that market forces, not collusion, drove beef prices during the period in question.

For investors, the settlement removes a significant legal overhang from Tyson's stock, though the company still faces ongoing litigation in the pork case and potential additional claims. Shares of Tyson traded slightly higher following the settlement announcement, as Wall Street priced in the resolution of one major legal risk.

The broader meat industry continues to face antitrust scrutiny from both the Department of Justice and the Federal Trade Commission, which have made agricultural market competition a priority in recent years. Whether this latest settlement leads to structural changes in how the industry operates remains to be seen.