Did Cal-Maine and other egg producers manipulate egg-price benchmarks?
DOJ alleges coordinated bidding inflated egg-price benchmarks. Cal-Maine denies wrongdoing and price effects. The proposed consent judgment contains no admission, while separate debate concerns the conduct's economic importance and the remedy.
Case period:
Published by The Dispute Index editorial teamPublished Updated
Overview
The June 29, 2026 complaint alleges coordination from June 2022 to March 2025, including bids timed to influence daily benchmark quotations. DOJ says retail supply contracts using those benchmarks carried the effects into the wider market.
Cal-Maine says its conduct was lawful, that it left the cooperative in May 2024, and that communications cited in the complaint did not affect prices. Its CEO cites avian influenza and other supply shocks as causes of price increases.
The proposed consent judgment would impose compliance duties without a trial or admission. Politico's October 18 reporting describes separate disagreement about the size of the alleged conduct's economic effect and whether the settlement is sufficient. Those questions do not establish or negate the alleged agreement.
Read the full background
The core factual dispute is whether the producers coordinated bidding to manipulate the benchmark. Supply shocks and unlawful coordination are not mutually exclusive explanations. The proposed judgment does not quantify how much nationwide egg-price inflation the alleged conduct caused or adjudicate the allegations.
People in this case
Letitia JamesCommented
Timeline
2 timeline entries on this page. Dates: June 29, 2026 to October 18, 2026
June 2026
DOJ and states file a complaint and proposed consent judgment
Claim
Government plaintiffs allege coordinated manipulation of egg-price benchmarks and seek injunctive relief. The proposed Cal-Maine judgment is a consent resolution without a trial, adjudication or admission.
[01]United States Department of Justice
The civil complaint in case 5:26-cv-04060 alleges coordinated bidding to manipulate egg-price benchmarks. Its allegations are contested.
United States and 17 states v. Cal-Maine Foods and others: complaint · United States Department of Justice[02]United States Department of Justice
The proposed consent judgment states that the parties consent without a trial, adjudication or admission. It is not an entered finding of liability.
Proposed final judgment for Cal-Maine Foods · United States Department of Justice[03]United States Department of Justice
The department describes its allegations and proposed compliance remedies, subject to court approval.
Justice Department announces proposed egg-benchmark settlements · United States Department of Justice
October 2026
New interviews examine the alleged conduct and the proposed remedy
Source release
Politico publishes interviews with enforcement officials, settlement critics and economist Scott Lincicome. They disagree about the adequacy of the remedy and the alleged conduct's importance to nationwide price movements. The article reports that court approval is still pending.
[04]Maybe There Was an Egg Cartel After All
The article contains original interviews about the alleged conduct, its economic importance and the proposed settlement. Interview dates are not specified.
Claims
Claims separate what was said from what is contested. Follow each source for the original wording and context.
What's disputed
Disputed claim
United States Department of Justice
The defendant egg producers agreed to coordinate bidding to inflate Urner Barry egg-price benchmarks.
What is disputed
The core factual dispute is whether the producers coordinated bidding to manipulate the benchmark. Supply shocks and unlawful coordination are not mutually exclusive explanations. The proposed judgment does not quantify how much nationwide egg-price inflation the alleged conduct caused or adjudicate the allegations.
Sources (1)
- United States and 17 states v. Cal-Maine Foods and others: complaint · United States Department of Justice
Arguments
Documented position
DOJ and the state plaintiffs
The alleged agreement targeted the benchmark
The complaint alleges coordinated bidding designed to influence daily quotations used in supply contracts. Its theory relies on communications and bidding practices rather than high profits alone.
Limit of this argument
The complaint is an allegation. The proposed judgment does not adjudicate liability or quantify the alleged effect on nationwide inflation.
Read sources
Sources
- United States and 17 states v. Cal-Maine Foods and others: complaint · United States Department of Justice
- Proposed final judgment for Cal-Maine Foods · United States Department of Justice
Documented position
Cal-Maine's response and Sherman Miller's statement
Cal-Maine disputes the conduct and price effects
The company denies wrongdoing and says the cited communications did not affect prices. Miller points to supply shocks, including avian influenza, as reasons prices rose.
Limit of this argument
Supply shocks do not exclude a separate manipulation effect. Cal-Maine's denial does not resolve the government's allegations.
Read sources
Sources
- United States and 17 states v. Cal-Maine Foods and others: complaint · United States Department of Justice
Response record
Responses
Choose one response filter, or select All responses to see the full record.
3 responses. Newest first.
United States Department of JusticeFederal plaintiff, joined by 17 states in a civil antitrust complaintDirectly involvedBefore this statement
The complaint alleges coordinated bidding from June 2022 through March 2025.
"Defendants’ agreement to manipulate the Urner Barry price quotations violates Section 1 of the Sherman Act and should be enjoined."
CondemnedCase context: Did Cal-Maine and other egg producers manipulate egg-price benchmarks?
Full statement and sources
DOJ alleges that the producers agreed to manipulate egg-price benchmarks in violation of antitrust law and asks the court to stop the alleged conduct.
After the statement
Cal-Maine denies wrongdoing. Its proposed consent judgment contains no trial finding or admission of liability.
United States and 17 states v. Cal-Maine Foods and others: complaint · United States Department of JusticeProposed final judgment for Cal-Maine Foods · United States Department of JusticeWhy this label?
The complaint expressly rejects the alleged coordination as unlawful and seeks to enjoin it.
This label describes the statement's response within the context above.
Cal-Maine FoodsEgg producer responding to the civil antitrust caseDirectly involved Before this statement
Cal-Maine says it participated in a cage-free supply cooperative but left in May 2024, before the investigation.
"The Company denies all wrongdoing and violations of law and continues to believe that such claims are baseless and that its conduct was lawful, appropriate and in the best interest of supplying eggs to the marketplace. Cal-Maine further maintains that the Company's communications cited in the complaint – which were made primarily by a single former employee – did not impact egg prices in any market."
DeniedCase context: Did Cal-Maine and other egg producers manipulate egg-price benchmarks?
Full statement and sources
Cal-Maine denies unlawful conduct and says the communications cited in the complaint did not affect egg prices.
After the statement
The proposed consent judgment sets out compliance measures, egg donations and payments to states. It states that Cal-Maine consents without a trial, adjudication or admission of fact or law.
United States and 17 states v. Cal-Maine Foods and others: complaint · United States Department of JusticeProposed final judgment for Cal-Maine Foods · United States Department of JusticeWhy this label?
The company explicitly denies the alleged conduct and price effects; a settlement is not an admission.
This label describes the statement's response within the context above.
Letitia JamesNew York attorney general and a plaintiff in the multistate caseBefore this statement
James's office announces a multistate settlement with Cal-Maine Foods, Versova/Centrum and Hickman's Egg Ranch after an investigation of their communications and bids on the Urner Barry index.
"These egg producers manipulated the market to squeeze even more profit out of consumers and businesses. By shutting this scheme down and delivering millions of eggs to those in need, we’re sending a clear message that companies will not get away with illegal price hikes in New York."
CondemnedCase context: Did Cal-Maine and other egg producers manipulate egg-price benchmarks?
Full statement and sources
James says Cal-Maine, Versova/Centrum and Hickman's Egg Ranch coordinated bidding to manipulate egg-price benchmarks. She announces a settlement requiring egg donations and payments to states.
After the statement
Cal-Maine's proposed consent judgment states that the agreement does not constitute an admission by any party.
Attorney General James announces the egg-producer settlement · Letitia JamesProposed final judgment for Cal-Maine Foods · United States Department of JusticeWhy this label?
James says the producers manipulated the market for profit. This criticizes the benchmark manipulation examined in the case.
This label describes the statement's response within the context above.
Sources
(6)
Original text
United States and 17 states v. Cal-Maine Foods and others: complaint
About this source
The civil complaint in case 5:26-cv-04060 alleges coordinated bidding to manipulate egg-price benchmarks. Its allegations are contested.
- Author
- U.S. Department of Justice and state attorneys general
- Published
- Accessed
Official statement
Attorney General James announces the egg-producer settlement
About this source
New York's attorney general describes the alleged coordination and the multistate settlement. Cal-Maine denies wrongdoing.
- Author
- Office of the New York Attorney General
- Published
- Accessed
Original text
Proposed final judgment for Cal-Maine Foods
About this source
The proposed consent judgment states that the parties consent without a trial, adjudication or admission. It is not an entered finding of liability.
- Published
- Accessed
Reporting
Maybe There Was an Egg Cartel After All
About this source
The article contains original interviews about the alleged conduct, its economic importance and the proposed settlement. Interview dates are not specified.
- Author
- Marcia Brown and Steve Volk
- Published
- Accessed
Official statement
Cal-Maine Foods reaches resolution with DOJ and 17 states' attorneys general
About this source
Cal-Maine denies unlawful conduct and price effects while agreeing to compliance measures, egg donations and payments to states, subject to approvals.
- Author
- Cal-Maine Foods
- Published
- Accessed
Official statement
Justice Department announces proposed egg-benchmark settlements
About this source
The department describes its allegations and proposed compliance remedies, subject to court approval.
- Author
- U.S. Department of Justice
- Published
- Accessed
Share or embed this case
The embed keeps its attribution link to The Dispute Index. Credit the image to The Dispute Index and link to the case page.
Cite this record
- Publisher
- The Dispute Index
- Title
- Did Cal-Maine and other egg producers manipulate egg-price benchmarks?
- First published
- Last updated
- Permalink
- https://disputeindex.com/cases/cal-maine-egg-price-benchmark-manipulation-doj-denial
The Dispute Index. "Did Cal-Maine and other egg producers manipulate egg-price benchmarks?". First published: 2026-10-19. Last updated: 2026-10-19. https://disputeindex.com/cases/cal-maine-egg-price-benchmark-manipulation-doj-denial