The post Big Food Brands Are Suing the Sugar Industry Over Price-Fixing Claims Again first appeared on Crafting Your Home.
On July 24, a group of large commercial food manufacturers and industrial sugar buyers filed a federal class action lawsuit in the US District Court for the District of Minnesota, demanding a jury trial and seeking damages and injunctive relief. The complaint accuses several of the country’s biggest sugar producers of unlawfully conspiring to raise, fix, maintain or stabilize refined sugar prices nationwide.
Frito-Lay and Grupo Bimbo are named among the plaintiffs. Legal outlet Law360 separately reported that PepsiCo, Quaker Oats and Bimbo Bakeries joined related filings the same week.
At the same time, trade publication MLex identified Nestlé USA, Hershey, JM Smucker, Kraft Heinz, WK Kellogg and Mondelēz Global as plaintiffs in parallel complaints filed in the same Minnesota court.
Together, the filings represent some of the largest buyers of granulated sugar in the country, companies that turn the ingredient into everything from soda to snack cakes to breakfast cereal.
The case centers on an alleged broker linking rival refiners
The plaintiffs allege the sugar producers colluded through an intermediary identified as Commodity Information Inc., an independent firm whose sole listed principal is Richard Wistisen, to influence pricing outcomes across the industry. According to the complaint, the alleged conduct dates back to at least January 1, 2019.
Named defendants include ASR Group International, American Sugar Refining, Domino Foods, United Sugars Corp, US Sugar, Michigan Sugar Co., and Louis Dreyfus LLC, along with Commodity Information and Wistisen himself.
The plaintiffs say they bought substantial volumes of refined sugar directly from one or more defendants at prices they claim were artificially inflated.
The lawsuit builds on a case that has been working through federal court since 2024
This isn’t the first time sugar producers have faced similar accusations. A class action filed by KPH Healthcare Services on March 14, 2024, alleged that several sugar companies shared competitively sensitive, nonpublic information about prices and sales volumes. The lawsuit claimed the information sharing allowed the companies to avoid competing independently.
That case was later consolidated with related antitrust actions and transferred into the District of Minnesota as part of a broader multidistrict proceeding.
The litigation has taken several turns. In October 2025, a court granted several defendants’ motions to dismiss, finding that the plaintiffs had not provided enough evidence of an agreement to fix prices. The court also held that sharing price information alone does not automatically violate the Sherman Act. The July filing effectively renews and sharpens the underlying claims with a new round of plaintiffs.
Separately, in 2024, three related antitrust suits landed in the same Minnesota court from a different set of buyers: Duluth-based Great Harvest Bread, St. Paul’s Morelos Bakery and the Connecticut restaurant group WNT.
Those complaints alleged an ongoing agreement among producing defendants since at least 2019 involving price signaling and exchanges of detailed, non-public data. They sought injunctions plus unspecified damages rather than a named dollar figure.
Sugar producers have pushed back on the claims
ASR Group has disputed the allegations. A spokesperson for the company said that the facts do not support the claims and that the company intends to defend itself in court. Other named defendants did not provide comment by press time, per that report.
In the earlier 2024 round of litigation, United Sugars and Cargill separately denied wrongdoing, characterizing the claims as baseless and saying their pricing reflects fair competition rather than coordination.
Minnesota’s role as the nation’s top sugar beet grower puts it at the center of the fight
The location of the litigation is not incidental. Minnesota grows more sugar beets than any other state, giving it an outsized stake in how the industry is regulated and litigated. The broader sugar market has drawn antitrust scrutiny for decades, partly because production is concentrated among a small number of large companies.
That scrutiny has a paper trail. The sugar industry has faced federal antitrust scrutiny before. In 1978, the Justice Department secured consent decrees against several sugar refiners that barred agreements to fix prices, exchange certain pricing information, and coordinate over the sale of private-label sugar.
Those earlier cases have since been cited in discussions of the industry’s current antitrust litigation, highlighting its long history of federal scrutiny.
The Justice Department has also intervened more recently on competition grounds, suing in 2022 to block US Sugar’s proposed acquisition of Imperial Sugar over concerns it would concentrate refined sugar sales in the southeastern United States among too few producers.
What the case could mean beyond the courtroom
For now, the claims remain allegations, and the sugar producers named in the suit have signaled they intend to contest them vigorously rather than settle. The case’s path also carries a caution: the October 2025 dismissal ruling shows judges in this same proceeding have already found some of these arguments insufficient once, meaning the new plaintiffs face a legal bar the earlier case did not clear.
Still, the roster of household food brands now involved, spanning snacks, baked goods, beverages and confectionery, signals how central sugar costs are to grocery pricing more broadly.
Bakeries, candy makers and beverage companies all rely on refined sugar as a base ingredient, and any court finding on how it was priced between 2019 and now would ripple through an industry that touches nearly every aisle of the American grocery store. The case is proceeding in the US District Court for the District of Minnesota.
Other Posts You May Like
If you like what you just read, then subscribe to our newsletter and follow us on social media.
