Articles Posted in Agriculture

Seven Lesser-Known Antitrust Exemptions and Immunities

June 18, 2026 | Aaron Gott

There are a number of exemptions to and immunities from the federal antitrust laws. Some are well known, and we have written about many of them before. Jarod Bona catalogued the big ones—state-action immunity, the filed-rate doctrine, the insurance exemption under the McCarran-Ferguson Act, the baseball exemption, the Capper-Volstead Act for agricultural cooperatives, Noerr-Pennington, the statutory and non-statutory labor exemptions, implied immunity, export trade exemptions, foreign sovereign doctrines, the FTAIA, and primary jurisdiction.

Maybe you knew about the baseball exemption. But did you know about the Coca-Cola exemption? How about the Sports Broadcasting exemption? As you might expect, Congress has carved out various immunities and exemptions—often to serve a particularly powerful constituency—and Coca-Cola (and its bottlers) and the National Football League top the list for firms that hold enough cultural sway and political capital to obtain an antitrust golden ticket.

I’m an antitrust lawyer, and even I didn’t know about the Coca-Cola exemption—until I listened to the Coca-Cola episode of Acquired. And that wasn’t even the first time Acquired had taught me about antitrust: it also taught me about the Sports Broadcasting exemption. I decided enough was enough and catalogued some more of these lesser-known antitrust exemptions so that this doesn’t happen to you, too. Some of these exemptions are narrow, some are surprisingly broad. All of them are at least interesting.

The Fishermen’s Collective Marketing Act

Passed in 1934, the Fishermen’s Collective Marketing Act is essentially a Capper-Volstead Act for the fishing industry. It permits associations of fishermen to collectively catch, prepare, handle, and market fish and fish products without triggering antitrust liability. Like the Capper-Valstead Act, the fishermen’s exemption covers the cooperative’s core marketing activities but does not immunize predatory conduct—using the cooperative as a vehicle to harm processors, distributors, or other non-member competitors falls outside its protection. The Act is rarely litigated, which is part of why it flies under the radar, but for commercial fishing operations structured as cooperatives, it is the primary statutory basis for coordinating output and pricing that would otherwise look like textbook horizontal price-fixing. If you advise fishing cooperatives or process antitrust complaints in that industry, it’s worth understanding the ins and outs of this exemption. If don’t deal in the fish industry, you are now well on your way to crushing your next trivia question about obscure antitrust exemptions.

The Soft Drink Interbrand Competition Act

Did you know that Coca-Cola doesn’t actually make the product you know and love? Instead, it makes syrup, and it sells that syrup to independent bottlers through a licensing agreement. The bottlers mix that syrup with carbonated water and put it in a can or bottle, and then deliver it to the store where you buy it. Make no mistake, Coca-Cola tightly controls the process and this distribution model benefits Coca-Cola in myriad ways. But to make it work, Coca-Cola had to give these independents exclusive territories. And even though Coca-Cola’s distribution model had existed for decades, the FTC decided in the 1970s that it did not like it. (The agency also targeted Pepsi and its bottler network.) The FTC argued that the exclusive territorial arrangements that soft drink manufacturers used for bottler distribution violated Section 1 of the Sherman Act because they were unlawful market allocation agreements between competitors.

Congress passed the Soft Drink Interbrand Competition Act in 1980 to preempt that debate by statute, expressly authorizing exclusive territorial grants in carbonated soft drink distribution—so long as the manufacturer faces substantial and effective interbrand competition from other brands. That “interbrand competition” requirement is the meaningful limitation on the exemption: if a brand faces robust competition from other soft drink brands, its exclusive territories are immunized. If the market has become so concentrated that a brand faces no real interbrand pressure, the immunity is more fragile. The Act is a notable example of Congress legislating a specific safe harbor for a single industry’s distribution structure—conduct that, in most other contexts, could be unlawful depending on the specifics of the distribution structure.

The Newspaper Preservation Act

The Newspaper Preservation Act of 1970 authorizes joint operating agreements—JOAs—between competing newspapers in markets where one paper is at serious risk of financial failure. Under a JOA, two separately owned papers can merge their printing, distribution, advertising, and business operations while maintaining separate and independent editorial staffs. In antitrust terms, this is an explicit congressional authorization for competing publishers to share costs, coordinate pricing, and allocate markets in their commercial operations—conduct that would otherwise be per se illegal under the Sherman Act—so long as they seek preclearance to do so. The rationale is that two editorially independent papers sharing a back office serve the public better than one monopoly survivor. The Act requires the Attorney General to approve new JOAs, and the “probable danger of financial failure” standard is supposed to function as a real gatekeeping requirement—not a rubber stamp. The number of newspapers operating under JOAs has declined sharply as the industry has contracted, but as Pat Pascarella and I once argued, the JOA framework could still be relevant. And local news markets continue to consolidate as more and more papers go under.

The National Cooperative Research and Production Act

The National Cooperative Research and Production Act—the NCRPA—was originally enacted in 1984 as the National Cooperative Research Act and expanded in 1993 to cover production joint ventures. It does two distinct things. First, it requires that R&D and production joint ventures that file notification with the DOJ and FTC be evaluated under the rule of reason rather than the per se standard—a significant benefit given that horizontal coordination between competitors can attract fights over the application of the ancillary-restraints doctrine and possibly per se treatment. Second, and perhaps more importantly, it limits antitrust damages for qualifying ventures to actual damages rather than treble damages, even if the venture is ultimately found to have violated the antitrust laws. The notification process is not burdensome: the parties file with both agencies describing the venture’s scope and membership, and publish a summary in the Federal Register. The liability exposure drops substantially as soon as notification is filed. For technology consortia, standard-setting bodies, and any group of competitors considering pooled R&D or joint manufacturing, the NCRPA is a meaningful but often overlooked risk-reduction tool.

The Local Government Antitrust Act

The Local Government Antitrust Act of 1984—the LGAA—is distinct from, and more narrow than, state-action immunity under Parker v. Brown. State-action immunity is a complete defense: qualifying governmental conduct is simply not subject to antitrust liability. The LGAA operates differently. It does not immunize the underlying conduct; it eliminates only damages, and only for local governments and their officials. Under the LGAA, local governments and their officials acting in official capacities cannot be held liable for damages under the federal antitrust laws, even if their conduct is ultimately found to be anticompetitive. Injunctive and declaratory relief remain fully available. The practical consequence for plaintiffs is significant: before investing in antitrust litigation against a municipality or local agency, you need to assess whether injunctive relief alone justifies the cost, because treble damages—the usual engine driving private antitrust enforcement—are off the table. The LGAA damages bar can apply even when Parker immunity fails, so you want to consider both defenses in the case from the beginning.

The Shipping Act

The Shipping Act of 1984—updated by the Ocean Shipping Reform Act of 1998 and amended again by OSRA 2022—creates a regime of supervised antitrust immunity for ocean carrier agreements. Under the Act, common carriers can enter into agreements fixing rates, pooling revenues, allocating cargo, and coordinating vessel capacity, provided they file those agreements with the Federal Maritime Commission. Once filed, the agreements receive antitrust immunity unless the FMC acts to reject or modify them. The immunity is not unconditional: the FMC retains authority to prohibit agreement terms that are unjustly discriminatory or unreasonably harmful to shippers, and OSRA 2022 added new requirements around transparency and service contract compliance. But the core structure—FMC-supervised horizontal coordination among ocean carriers—remains intact and immunizes conduct that would be per se illegal under the Sherman Act in virtually any other context. For shippers challenging rate coordination or capacity management practices by ocean carriers, this means the FMC regulatory process, not an antitrust lawsuit, is generally the primary available remedy.

The Sports Broadcasting Act

The baseball exemption gets most of the attention in sports-and-antitrust discussions. Baseball’s exemption is judge-made, rooted in a 1922 Supreme Court decision holding that baseball was not interstate commerce—a conclusion the Court has since acknowledged was likely wrong but kept alive on stare decisis grounds. But there is another sports exemption that applies beyond baseball: the Sports Broadcasting Act.

Continue reading →

When Loyalty Programs Become Antitrust Problems: DOJ’s Bayer Seed Investigation

June 6, 2026 | Aaron Gott

Author: Aaron Gott

Last week, the Department of Justice announced that Bayer CropScience LLC has removed two sets of potentially anticompetitive provisions from its “Premier Performance Program”—a loyalty program for independent seed companies that sell Bayer’s corn and soybean seed. The announcement came not as the result of a consent decree or court order, but as a voluntary commitment Bayer made during the course of a still-ongoing DOJ investigation.

This is an example of a company taking a hard look at the antitrust risks of its sales initiatives and deciding that the benefit was outweighed by those risks.

Ideally, companies take a hard look at their antitrust risks before they face an investigation. So let’s talk about what those antitrust risks were for Bayer.

Bayer’s Loyalty Program

The Premier Performance Program gave independent seed companies discounts in exchange for meeting sales performance targets. Two features of the program drew DOJ scrutiny.

The first problem with Bayer’s loyalty program was that it imposed a tie. To qualify for discounts, seed companies had to hit targets for *both* corn seed *and* soybean seed. That is a textbook tying arrangement: access to favorable pricing on Product A (corn) conditioned on meeting volume targets for Product B (soybeans).

The antitrust laws treat tying with real suspicion. Tying is suspicious enough, in fact, that Congress has provided the government and private plaintiffs with three different ways under which they can plead a tying claim: as an anticompetitive agreement (between supplier and customer) that violates Sherman Act Section 1; as a unilateral anticompetitive act by a supplier with monopoly power under Sherman Act Section 2; and as a conditional sales arrangement for goods under Clayton Act Section 3. While the requirements of the three different tying claims vary, a seller has antitrust risk for tying where the seller has, at a minimum, appreciable economic power in the tying product.

In a competitive, open market, buyers are free to buy the products they want from the sellers they want. With tying, a seller usurps that choice, using its power in the tying market (where it sells a product customers want) to force buyers to also buy from seller in the tied market (where it sells a product customers don’t want, or at least don’t necessarily want it from seller). As a result, competition in the second (the “tied”) market suffers—alternatives go unpurchased, rivals lose distribution, and that market concentrates around the seller. The result is that seller wins in the “tied” market for reasons other than the merits of seller’s participation in that market. And one largely unspoken principle of antitrust law is that winning for reasons other than the merits is always suspicious.

That was the DOJ’s concern with Bayer’s loyalty program. The DOJ’s announcement notes that Bayer is “the primary source for traited corn seed sold by independent seed companies.” So Bayer is a dominant supplier of traited corn seed, and its loyalty program gave discounts only if the seed company buyers also bought soybean seed from Bayer. In other words, Bayer required customers to take a second product to get favorable terms on the first. In effect, Bayer imposed a toll on corn seed buyers who did not also buy its soybean seeds.

The second problem with Bayer’s loyalty program was that it incentivized exclusivity. The program included provisions that could reduce independent seed companies’ willingness to license seed technology from Bayer’s competitors. The DOJ viewed these incentives as potentially anticompetitive because, it suspected, Bayer was using its loyalty program to foreclose rival seed technology from the distribution channel.

Exclusive dealing and its “cousins”—loyalty discounts, bundled rebates, and incentive programs that effectively limit customers’ ability to patronize competitors—are analyzed under the rule of reason. The question is whether the program forecloses a substantial share of the distribution channel to rivals. A loyalty program that financially penalizes seed companies for licensing competitors’ genetics does exactly that.

Taking a step back from these specific doctrines, the DOJ looked at Bayer’s loyalty program and saw a set of complementary, unilaterally imposed contract terms and incentive structures that functioned to foreclose competition in markets Bayer participated in by using its already substantial power rather than by competing on the merits day by day, product by product. At its core, that is what Section 2 of the Sherman Act seeks to prevent.

Lessons for Investigative Targets

Bayer eliminated both aspects of its loyalty program and has committed not to reinstate them for seven years.

It’s worth noting what Bayer’s commitment does and does not do. DOJ announced that Bayer made its commitment as a result of an “ongoing investigation” and made the changes “during the course of” that investigation. But Bayer did this voluntarily, not because it reached a consent agreement with DOJ. While DOJ will likely consider Bayer’s voluntary cessation of the conduct as a mitigating factor as it proceeds, it does not end the investigation and DOJ remains free to continue its investigation, pursue enforcement, and demand further remedies.

Still, this kind of resolution—behavioral commitments extracted through investigation pressure before DOJ undertakes formal litigation—is common in DOJ enforcement. The Division announces publicly that the conduct has changed, creates a deterrent effect across the industry, and reserves the right to continue its investigation. For Bayer, the alternative was presumably a filed case or a consent decree with more constraining terms. For the DOJ, it is an efficient way to change conduct quickly without committing the resources required for litigation while maintaining full flexibility and discretion going forward —not to mention the ever-present, implicit threat of exercising that discretion to maximum effect.

Also trending in DOJ enforcement? Agribusiness. Bayer is not the first agribusiness to draw this kind of DOJ scrutiny in recent years, and it is unlikely to be the last. Agricultural input markets—seeds, chemicals, equipment—are concentrated and have been under increased enforcement attention since the DOJ and USDA signed their 2025 memorandum of understanding on agricultural competition. Acting Assistant Attorney General Omeed Assefi said it plainly: “Enforcement in agriculture is a top priority for the Antitrust Division.” And that’s to say nothing of state antitrust enforcers, some of whom have also made conduct and concentration in agriculture a chief priority.

Lessons for Loyalty Programs

Ideally, your company will not become an investigative target because of its loyalty programs in the first place. Loyalty programs create risks that can be managed—and assessed against their benefits. A few questions are worth asking to start:

Continue reading →

Antitrust for Kids: Watch Out for Predatory Halloween…Pricing!!

October 19, 2023 | Molly Donovan

Author: Molly Donovan

At Argo Elementary, a group of kids gathers daily at lunch to buy and sell candy. The trading activity is a longtime tradition at Argo and it’s taken very seriously—more like a competitive sport than a pastime.

Candy trading doesn’t end once a 5^th grader graduates from Argo. It continues across town at Chicago Middle School—but instead of lunch, candy trading happens there at the close of each school day. (The middle school had banned lunchtime trading due to several disputes that grew out of hand.)

Now here’s where it gets complicated, and nobody knows why it works this way, but the average lunchtime price at Argo determines the starting price for trades later in the day at Chicago.

For example: the average selling price for a candy bar on Monday, lunch at Argo is $2.50. Monday after-school prices at Chicago also will start at $2.50.

There are rules about what kind of candy can be traded—so that one trade can be easily compared to another (candied apples-to-candied apples) for purposes of determining who’s “winning.”

And sometimes kids—particularly the older ones at Chicago—place bets on what will happen on a particular trading day in the future, e.g., I bet prices will reach $3 or I bet no more than 50 candy bars will get sold this Friday.

That’s it by way of background. Here’s our story.

Arthur D. Midland (“ADM”) is 9. He is the link between Argo and Chicago. Each day, ADM leaves Argo Elementary when school lets out, walks to Chicago Middle, announces the “start-of-trade” Chicago price based on the lunchtime Argo price, and Chicago trading begins. (ADM’s mother allows this because ADM’s older brother (Midas) also trades at Chicago—so the two boys can watch each other.)

At the start of the school year, ADM contrived a very clever scheme. He bet Midas that, on Halloween, Chicago prices would be very low—as low as $1. Midas said, “No way! September prices are already at $2.50. If anything, prices will increase as kids go candy crazy in October. I’ll take that bet.”

So, for every candy bar sold at Chicago on Halloween for $1 or less, Midas would owe ADM $1. And for every candy bar sold at Chicago for more than $1, ADM would owe Midas $1.

With that bet front of mind, ADM became the primary candy seller at Argo, and as Halloween neared, he flooded Argo with candy and sold it intentionally at very low prices—50 cents for a Snickers! (ADM had the requisite inventory because he was an avid trick-or-treater and had saved all his Halloween candy from years past.)

Due to ADM’s scheme, Argo prices got so low that some kids packed up their candy and went home—refusing to trade there at all.

Well, Halloween finally came and, as you can imagine, ADM made a killing on the bet—100 candy bars were sold at Chicago on Halloween at less than $1, forcing Midas to pay ADM his entire savings. This more than compensated ADM for whatever losses he incurred for under-selling at Argo.

Once Midas realized ADM’s trick, he was furious. Didn’t ADM cheat? Midas assumed—as did all candy traders—that bets derived from candy sales would be based on real—not artificial—market forces.

Did ADM get away with it?

So far, no.

My Muse: For now, plaintiff Midwest Renewable Energy has survived a motion to dismiss its Section 2 monopolization claim against Archer Daniels Midland.

The claim is based on allegations of predatory pricing—basically that the defendant’s prices were below an appropriate measure of its costs and that the low prices drove competitors from the market allowing the defendant to recoup its losses. (For more on predatory pricing, read here.)

In the ADM case, Midwest alleges that ADM manipulated ethanol-trading prices at the Argo Terminal in Illinois to create “substantial gains” on short positions ADM held on ethanol futures and options contracts traded on the Chicago Mercantile Exchange. Because the Argo prices determined the value of the derivatives contracts, by flooding Argo with ethanol that ADM sold at too-low prices, ADM allegedly was able to win big on the derivatives exchange—recouping whatever losses it incurred on the underlying asset.

On its motion to dismiss, ADM argued that Midwest had not sufficiently alleged that ethanol producers had exited the market due to ADM’s low prices or that ADM subsequently recouped its losses in the ethanol market. (ADM classed these arguments as going to antitrust injury.)

The Court agreed that Midwest was required to allege both that rivals exited the market and that recoupment was ongoing or imminent, but the court ruled Midwest’s allegations sufficient to do so.

Specifically, Midwest had alleged that 12 ethanol producers had either stopped or decreased ethanol production—which is enough at the motion to dismiss phase. The court said whether that alleged “handful” of plant closures had a discernible effect on consumers is a fact-intensive analysis not susceptible to resolution on the pleadings.

Continue reading →

State and Federal Enforcers Pull Out All the Stops to Target Meat and Poultry in 2022

December 31, 2021 | Aaron Gott

Author: Aaron Gott

A couple years ago, clamor for antitrust scrutiny of the agricultural industry was growing apace. But then the pandemic happened. Demand bottomed out, processing plants shuttered and everyone feared an unprecedented virus-induced recession. The clamor disappeared. The National Pork Producers Council even won approval from the U.S. Department of Justice Antitrust Division (with some strings) to engage in a coordinated nationwide campaign to reduce output through mass culling.

But now the clamor is back, and the meat and poultry industry appears to be a priority target for 2022.

In a December 21, 2021 letter to U.S. Secretary of Agriculture Tom Vilsack, a broad, bipartisan coalition of fifteen state attorneys general—from AG Keith Ellison in Minnesota to AG Sean Reyes of Utah—urged the USDA to use its powers under the Packers and Stockyard Act to counter rapidly increased concentration among meat processors, vertical integration, exclusive production arrangements, new sales and marketing practices, the emergence of third-party data services as key players in the market, and producer attrition. The letter also invokes the American Rescue Plan Act of 2021 as an opportunity establish a grant to fund state antitrust enforcement efforts in agricultural markets.

The letter did not come out of the blue or raise a novel new idea about using the Packers and Stockyard Act to further antitrust enforcement. Earlier this year, the USDA announced it would conduct rulemakings to address what it described as competition problems in the livestock markets. The coalition is telling USDA that the states agree and want to help, and that they definitely will help if the USDA gives them money to do so.

Around the same time that the USDA announced its plans, the U.S. Senate also held a hearing on concerns in the packing industry.

All this attention comes exactly 100 years after Congress passed the Packers and Stockyards Act. Let’s look at a little background before discussing these recent moves in more detail.

What is the Packers and Stockyards Act?

The Packers and Stockyards Act was passed in 1921 in response to a Federal Trade Commission study concluding that the livestock industry needed more competition. It is administered by the U.S. Department of Agriculture, Packers and Stockyards Division of the Agricultural Marketing Service. The act contains financial protection measures, and prohibits (1) unfair, discriminatory, and deceptive practices and (2) activities that might adversely affect competition. The act has been amended over the years to increase its scope and add additional regulatory powers.

The P&S Act applies to anyone engaged in the business of marketing livestock, meat, and poultry in commerce, which includes not just stockyards and processors, but also commission firms, auctioneers, dealers, buyers, brokers, wholesalers, and distributors. Notably, the act specifically excludes one important category of players: farmers and ranchers who buy livestock for feeding purposes or in marketing their own livestock for sale.

The P&S Act is enforced through administrative actions by the USDA and, on occasion, the USDA refers violations for civil or criminal enforcement by the U.S. Department of Justice through a U.S. Attorney’s office (rather than the Antitrust Division). Penalties and remedies include injunctive relief, business shutdowns, five-figure civil penalties, and additional fines and jail sentences for actions handled by the DOJ.

The Packers and Stockyard Act isn’t the only agriculture-specific antitrust law. Delve into an overview of the Capper-Volstead Act’s farm cooperative exemption next.

What USDA Regulatory Changes Have Already Occurred?

In December 2020, the USDA finalized a new rule addressing “undue or unreasonable preferences or advantages,” but this rule does not focus on core antitrust enforcement or the market concentration issues raised more recently. In fact, the rule was a long time in the making—it was mandated by Congress in the 2008 Farm Bill. It focuses on regulating conduct similar to price discrimination under the Robinson Patman Act. The USDA also put out new guidance on its enforcement policy regarding the rule in the form of a “frequently asked questions (FAQ)” document, which includes industry-specific guidance.

What USDA Regulatory Changes Might Occur in 2022 and beyond?

The USDA’s announcement focused on increasing its P&S Act enforcement efforts and new rulemakings. The proposed rulemakings would clarify key provisions of the law, define prohibited practices, eliminate “oppressive practices in chicken processing,” and reinforce its position that the agency need not demonstrate actual or threatened harm to competition to establish a violation of the act.

The state attorneys general have some additional recommendations:

They focus on the P&S Act’s anti-monopoly purpose in a push for the USDA to consider both horizontal and vertical competition implications and to conduct retrospective “academic” merger reviews.
They ask the USDA to consider additional reforms beyond those announced to include limits on alternative marketing arrangements that the attorneys general claim have led to “producers increasingly finding themselves at the mercy of the processors” and significantly reduced the number of independent producers in the market.
They ask the USDA to closely examine third-party data sharing in agricultural markets, which has already been the subject of private antitrust litigation. The letter asserts that these private, subscription-based data services are so granular that they could facilitate unlawful coordination or lead to market manipulation.

The U.S. Department of Justice Antitrust Division also announced it is working with the USDA and other agencies to fight “excessive concentration” and anticompetitive conduct in agricultural markets with a focus on ensuring the ability of small and independent farmers to compete. This could mean more aggressive merger reviews and stepped up civil and criminal enforcement efforts targeting conduct. In fact, the DOJ already teamed up with the USDA and other agencies to investigate the broiler chicken industry, leading to more than a dozen criminal indictments against companies and their executives. The DOJ also just challenged U.S. Sugar’s proposed acquisition of Imperial Sugar in November 2021.

Continue reading →

Can My Farm Cooperative Impose Production Restraints During Covid-19 Without Violating the Antitrust Laws?

July 23, 2020 | Aaron Gott

Author: Aaron Gott and Nick McNamara

As the effects of the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic continue to ripple across all sectors of the economy, agriculture has been hit especially hard. The widespread closure of restaurants combined with the general hit on most Americans’ wallets has precipitated a massive demand shock, which in turn has sent the prices of agricultural products such as corn, soybeans, milk, and fresh produce tumbling. While this may be good news for consumers (at least in the short run), it does not bode so well for farmers, who in recent months have had to resort to dumping milk and culling herds of livestock—practices which are both wasteful and potentially environmentally harmful.

Can farmers work together to mitigate these issues by agreeing, prior to production, to set production caps so that prices may be stabilized, and waste avoided? The answer depends on whether such controls on output are covered by the Capper-Volstead Act’s antitrust exemption for farm cooperatives.

Under normal circumstances, a concerted agreement among horizontal competitors to restrict output is a per se violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act. But the Capper-Volstead Act, enacted in 1922 amid populist fervor in the agricultural sector, provides a limited antitrust exemption to “[p]ersons engaged in the production of agricultural products as farmers, planters, ranchmen, dairymen, nut or fruit growers.”

You can read a more detailed primer on the Capper-Volstead Act here. But, in brief, the act allows agricultural producers to collectively process, prepare, handle, and market their products. Now, it is important to note again that the exemption applies only to agricultural producers, not processors. This past year, there has been a flurry of antitrust litigation against pork and beef processors who are alleged to have agreed to restrict output, among other things. As discussed in the primer, the Supreme Court has held that a cooperative cannot include processors because they do not fit into the category of “farmers, planters, ranchmen, dairymen, nut or fruit growers.” Thus, only those entities at the most basic level of the food supply chain get to enjoy the exemption.

For producers, the farm cooperative exemption has been interpreted by courts to include a blanket exemption from antitrust liability for price fixing, a practice which also normally incurs per se liability under Section 1 of the Sherman Act. No court has ever directly ruled on the question of whether the exemption applies also to output controls, but there are indications they might find output restrictions outside the narrow confines of the act.

Continue reading →

The Capper-Volstead Act Gives Farm Cooperatives a Limited Exemption from Antitrust Liability

October 29, 2019 | Aaron Gott

Author: Aaron Gott

The federal antitrust laws are a decisive proclamation that competition is the best policy—competition leads to better products and services, the greatest value at the lowest price. But, just like with anything else, there are exceptions. Congress and the courts have carved out numerous exceptions from antitrust liability—or as we’ll call them, exemptions. There’s an insurance exemption, a labor exemption, a baseball exemption, a state-action exemption, and many others. And they exist for a variety of reasons. Without the labor exemption, for example, union activity would be a felony. And we have a baseball exemption because, well, America likes baseball.

Today we’re going to talk about one important exemption for the agriculture industry: the farm cooperative exemption. Created by the Capper-Volstead Co-operative Marketing Associations Act (7 U.S.C. §§ 291–92), the farm cooperative exemption provides associations of persons or entities who produce agricultural products a limited exemption from antitrust liability relating to the production, handling, and marketing of farm products.

The farm cooperative exemption has some personal significance to me: I grew up across the street from one in my small Iowa town. And that co-op sponsored one of my little league teams.

At Bona Law, we regularly deal with antitrust exemptions. In fact, we have argued state-action exemption issues before the U.S. Supreme Court several times. As with any other exemption—and this is very important—the farm cooperative exemption is limited, disfavored, and narrowly applied. So it can easily become a trap. Like anything with antitrust, there are plenty of nuances and exceptions. We’re going to address some of those, but you should contact an antitrust lawyer if you really need to know whether the antitrust laws could apply, you’re being sued, or you want to consider suing.

The farm cooperative exemption allows a group of farmers—each of which is a competitor in the market—to come together and essentially act as one farmer. Through a cooperative, farmers pool their output together, agree on a price, and ultimately have more bargaining power in dealing with buyers—who historically were much bigger outfits than the individual farmers competing for their business.

The exemption also allows cooperatives to join together under a common marketing agency.

The exemption is overseen by the USDA, and the act gives direct oversight power to the Secretary of Agriculture. The secretary can, on his own volition, hold hearings, find facts, and issue orders to prevent cooperatives from monopolizing or restraining trade “to such an extent that the price of any agricultural product is unduly enhanced” as a result. But litigation—whether enforcement by the Department of Justice Antitrust Division or private civil lawsuits—is where a cooperative’s fate is usually decided.

Without the exemption, this sort of arrangement would be analytically indistinguishable from a price-fixing cartel, except that price-fixing cartels typically do not operate out in the open, since it is a serious felony. In fact, before 1922 when the act went into effect, farmers who acted together to market their products were sometimes prosecuted under the Sherman Act.

Conditions for the Antitrust Exemption

The Capper-Volstead Act establishes several conditions for the exemption to apply. There are two universal conditions:

Continue reading →