By John Q. Hosedrinker 
Tyson Foods will pay $85 million to settle a consumer lawsuit accusing the company of conspiring with competitors to inflate pork prices. This settlement, which is the largest in over seven years of antitrust litigation, will bring consumers’ total recovery to $208 million. The preliminary agreement requires court approval and marks Tyson as the last publicly traded company to settle in the case. The alleged price-fixing conspiracy, involving multiple companies, reportedly occurred from 2009 to 2018.
Read the original article here
Tyson Foods to pay $85 million in largest pork price-fixing settlement – that’s the headline, and it’s a doozy. The basic takeaway here is that Tyson, a major player in the food industry, has been ordered to pay a hefty fine. But the underlying issue is far more complex and, frankly, infuriating. The core problem is price-fixing. Essentially, the accusation is that Tyson and other companies colluded to manipulate the price of pork, thereby increasing their profits at the expense of consumers.
The alleged conspiracy took place between 2009 and 2018. That’s a long time, and the implication is that this wasn’t a one-off mistake, but rather a systematic effort. The goal, as stated by the plaintiffs, was to inflate prices and fatten the companies’ bottom lines. Now, $85 million sounds like a lot of money, and it is, but the question is whether it’s enough. The article indicates that Tyson likely made a lot more in illicit profits during that period. If their ill-gotten gains were in the billions, then an $85 million fine might just be considered the cost of doing business.
This leads to the central problem of these kinds of settlements: who actually benefits? Will consumers see any of that money directly? The answer, in most cases, is no. The money is likely to be absorbed by legal fees, administrative costs, and, perhaps, some redistribution to those entities who brought the case in the first place. The consumer, who was presumably overcharged for their pork for years, doesn’t see a penny. And let’s be honest, how many ordinary people even know about this fine, let alone how to claim any potential payout?
The idea of “cost of doing business” is a recurring theme in this whole scenario. When a company can make billions in profit and then simply pay a fine that is a fraction of that amount, where is the incentive not to engage in the same behavior again? As one comment points out, this is effectively a permission structure for future crimes. The risk is low, the potential reward is high, and the consequences aren’t severe enough to deter such behavior.
If you look at the numbers, the disparity is even more glaring. Divide the fine by the population and you get a tiny amount per person. The reality is this: each consumer lost a significant sum due to the price-fixing, but receives a negligible amount in compensation. This is why there’s a strong sentiment that fines need to be much harsher, perhaps tied to a percentage of the profits made, or perhaps even including jail time for those executives who orchestrated the scheme.
The article points out the importance of consolidation in the meat industry. When a handful of companies control most of the market, they have the power to manipulate prices. It also highlights the unsavory aspects of the industry’s labor practices, including reports of child labor in Tyson’s slaughterhouses. These are not isolated incidents; they are part of a pattern of questionable practices, driven by a desire to maximize profits.
The article also includes some very interesting comments about the legal battles surrounding this sort of activity. While the civil cases have often been successful, with plaintiffs winning, the criminal cases have had a much harder time. This disparity is significant and suggests that the government’s approach to prosecuting these cases is flawed, or that there’s an unwillingness to hold executives accountable. It seems that the plaintiffs’ lawyers in the civil cases are doing a better job of making their case.
The discussion also turns to the potential for a more effective approach. Instead of just paying a fine, what if the company was forced to lower prices for a set period, directly benefiting the consumer? What if executives were personally held liable for their actions, facing consequences that would actually deter them? The idea of financial penalties that truly cripple the company, or of executives being held personally responsible, is what many feel is needed. Without that kind of incentive structure, there’s no real reason for these companies to change their behavior.
The whole situation leaves a sour taste in the mouth. It reinforces the perception that large corporations often operate with impunity, prioritizing profits over the well-being of consumers and workers. And while the $85 million fine might sound impressive, it ultimately feels like a slap on the wrist. It’s clear that a more aggressive and comprehensive approach is needed to deter such behavior and protect consumers from price-fixing.