Food settlements finalized or advancing in 2024 through 2026 span antitrust conspiracies in pork, beef, and canned tuna; wage-fixing at meat and poultry plants; deceptive fees at Grubhub; false protein claims by Beyond Meat; and a listeria recall at TreeHouse Foods. Some claim windows are still open. Others have closed and are paying out. Here is where each case stands and what you may still be eligible to claim.
Settlements You Can Still File a Claim In
Beef Price-Fixing (Consumers)
On May 29, 2026, U.S. District Judge John R. Tunheim approved a combined $87.5 million settlement with Tyson Foods ($55 million) and Cargill ($32.5 million) to resolve claims that major beef packers suppressed cattle prices while inflating retail beef prices.1Capital Press. Judge Approves $87.5 Million Beef Antitrust Settlement
You may be eligible if you bought fresh or frozen beef in one of the qualifying primal cuts — chuck, loin, rib, or round — for personal use between August 1, 2014, and December 31, 2019, in one of 27 designated states or the District of Columbia. Premium, specialty, and processed beef products are excluded. Claims are due by June 30, 2026. If you don’t have receipts, you can attest to your typical household beef purchases during the class period. Payouts are pro rata from the net fund, so the per-claimant amount depends on how many people file.2Overcharged for Beef. Consumer Indirect Beef Litigation Settlement
Beef Price-Fixing (Direct Purchasers)
If your business bought fresh or frozen boxed or case-ready beef between January 1, 2015, and February 29, 2020, a separate $82.5 million Tyson settlement received preliminary approval on May 14, 2026. Claims in that track are due by November 30, 2026.3Feedstuffs. Preliminary Approval of Tyson Settlement With Beef DPPs Granted
Cattle ranchers had a separate $83.5 million settlement with JBS USA over feeder cattle price suppression, but that claim window closed September 15, 2025.4National Farmers Union. Claims Now Open in $83.5 Million Settlement With JBS in Cattle Antitrust Case
Pork Price-Fixing (Consumers)
Judge Tunheim gave preliminary approval on November 7, 2025, to an $85 million Tyson settlement covering shoppers who bought pork products such as bacon, ham, and sausage.5Hagens Berman. Pork Antitrust The consumer track also has final-approved settlements with JBS ($20 million) and Smithfield ($75 million), with a first distribution authorized in August 2023. A Hormel settlement is pending court approval; the amount has not been disclosed.6Pork Antitrust Litigation. In re Pork Antitrust Litigation – Direct Purchaser Actions Tyson has denied wrongdoing.
Commercial and institutional buyers of pork — restaurants and food-service operators — reached a $48 million Tyson deal in January 2026, their sixth settlement, bringing that track’s total to $114 million. That deal remains pending, with an objection deadline of July 14, 2026.7Pork Commercial Case. In re Pork Antitrust Litigation – Commercial and Institutional Indirect Purchaser Actions
Recently Closed Claim Windows and Pending Payouts
Canned Tuna Price-Fixing
On November 22, 2024, U.S. District Judge Dana Sabraw granted final approval to settlements resolving claims that StarKist, Bumble Bee, and Chicken of the Sea conspired to fix prices on canned and pouched tuna.8Courthouse News. Judge Grants $216 Million Settlement in Yearslong Canned Tuna Antitrust Suit
The consumer settlement fund totaled $152.2 million, covering shoppers in 33 states and territories who bought tuna under 40 ounces between June 2011 and July 2015. The consumer claim deadline was December 31, 2024, and payments for approved claims were anticipated in the second quarter of 2026.9Tuna End Purchaser Settlement. Tuna End Purchaser Settlement Direct-purchaser payments (to retailers and distributors) were issued by March 2026.10Tuna Direct Purchaser Case. In re Packaged Seafood Products Antitrust Litigation – Direct Purchaser Settlement
Beyond Meat Protein Labeling
Beyond Meat agreed to a $7.5 million settlement over claims that its plant-based products contained less protein, of lower quality, than advertised. If you bought covered products between May 31, 2018, and August 14, 2024, you had until April 14, 2025, to file. Payouts were set at $2 per product, capped at $10 without proof of purchase and uncapped with receipts, subject to pro rata reduction.11Top Class Actions. $7.5M Beyond Meat False Advertising Class Action Settlement
TreeHouse Foods Frozen Waffle Recall
TreeHouse Foods agreed to a $4 million settlement after a 2024 voluntary recall of frozen waffles, pancakes, and other breakfast products sold under more than four dozen brands, due to potential Listeria monocytogenes contamination. The class covers U.S. residents who bought a covered product between October 18, 2024, and September 2, 2025. Claims were due December 16, 2025. Claimants with receipts can get a full refund including taxes; those without can receive the average retail price for up to two units, with all individual payouts capped at $50 and any prior TreeHouse reimbursement subtracted.12Classaction.org. $4M TreeHouse Foods Settlement Ends Class Action Lawsuit Over Frozen Waffle Listeria Contamination TreeHouse denied wrongdoing.13Waffle Recall Settlement. Waffle Recall Settlement
Meat and Poultry Worker Settlements
Poultry Wage-Fixing
In Jien v. Perdue Farms, poultry workers alleged that more than 20 major companies used Agri Stats data to coordinate wages over roughly two decades. Judge granted final approval on June 5, 2025, to a $398 million settlement fund.14Feedstuffs. Poultry Workers Receive Notice of Agri Stats Settlement
The class covers non-supervisory employees who worked at a defendant’s processing complex, plant, hatchery, or feed mill between January 1, 2000, and July 20, 2021. Defendants include Tyson, Perdue, Pilgrim’s Pride, Sanderson Farms, Koch Foods, Cargill, Wayne Farms, Mountaire, Foster Poultry Farms, Simmons Foods, Butterball, and Jennie-O, among others.15Hagens Berman. Hagens Berman Reaches Settlements Totaling $398 Million in Poultry Wage-Fixing Antitrust Class Action Lawsuit The first distribution to workers was scheduled to begin May 15, 2026. Agri Stats, the last defendant to settle, paid no money but agreed to conduct restrictions on the wage data it reports.16Poultry Wages. Poultry Worker Wage-Fixing Settlement
Beef and Pork Plant Wage Suppression
A related case, Brown v. JBS USA Food Company, et al., targets wage suppression at beef and pork processing plants. Preliminary settlements totaling roughly $202.7 million had been approved as of October 2025, with Tyson and JBS accounting for $127.2 million, and Cargill, National Beef, and Hormel adding $57.4 million. The class covers workers at defendant plants between January 1, 2014, and February 2024. A final approval hearing is set for October 2, 2026. Litigation against Smithfield Foods continues.17Cohen Milstein. Brown v. JBS USA Food Company, et al.
Grubhub FTC Settlement
On December 17, 2024, the Federal Trade Commission and Illinois Attorney General Kwame Raoul announced a $25 million settlement with Grubhub over claims the platform deceived diners, restaurants, and drivers. The FTC alleged that Grubhub added hidden “junk fees” despite advertising a single low delivery cost, listed as many as 325,000 restaurants without their consent, and misled drivers about potential earnings.18CNBC. Grubhub FTC Settlement Over Harmful Practices Toward Diners and Workers
The FTC issued a $140 million judgment but suspended most of it based on Grubhub’s stated inability to pay. If Grubhub is later found to have misrepresented its finances, the full amount becomes enforceable. Of the $25 million actually owed, $24.8 million is earmarked for consumer refunds nationwide. Grubhub must also disclose all fees upfront, stop listing restaurants without permission, back up any earnings claims to drivers, notify customers when accounts are blocked, and simplify membership cancellations.19Illinois Attorney General. Attorney General Raoul, FTC Announce $25 Million Settlement With Grubhub Over Alleged Deceptive Business Practices
Agri Stats DOJ Consent Decree
On May 7, 2026, the Department of Justice and six state attorneys general (California, Minnesota, North Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, and Utah) filed a proposed consent decree resolving allegations that Agri Stats facilitated anticompetitive information-sharing across the broiler chicken, turkey, and pork industries.20U.S. Department of Justice. Proposed Final Judgment – United States v. Agri Stats
There is no monetary penalty. Instead, Agri Stats must stop publishing its “Sales Report Books” of nonpublic pricing data, cannot report production, cost, or labor data at the company or facility level, and cannot identify or rank contributing processors. Permitted reports must use data at least 45 days old on average (90 days for production-decision data), draw from at least three contributors, and cap any single contributor at 70 percent of the data. Agri Stats must also offer its reports to any interested buyer, including protein purchasers, on the same terms as it offers meat processors. The decree, if approved, runs up to ten years, with a court-appointed compliance monitor for seven.21WilmerHale. DOJ, States Reach Significant Settlement in Agri Stats Information-Sharing Antitrust Litigation
Ultra-Processed Food Lawsuits: No Settlements Yet
Cases targeting the makers of ultra-processed foods are pending, and no settlement money is available. On December 5, 2025, San Francisco City Attorney David Chiu filed what is considered the first government-led lawsuit against ultra-processed food manufacturers, naming PepsiCo, Kraft Heinz, Coca-Cola, General Mills, Mondelēz, Nestlé, Post Holdings, Kellanova, Kellogg, Mars, and Conagra. The complaint alleges violations of California’s Unfair Competition Law and public nuisance statutes and accuses the companies of targeting children, low-income consumers, and communities of color. In April 2026, U.S. District Judge Jon Tigar sent the case back to San Francisco Superior Court.22Courthouse News. California Suit Over Ultraprocessed Foods Sent Back to State Court
A private consumer, Olivia Kreie, filed a $1 billion lawsuit in the Eastern District of Wisconsin on April 27, 2026, against the same companies plus Unilever, linking specific products to her Type 2 diabetes diagnosis. As of mid-June 2026, no defendant had filed a substantive response.23Food Dive. Ultraprocessed Food Consumer Lawsuit Against Kraft Heinz, PepsiCo, and Others An earlier individual case was dismissed in 2025 as “woefully deficient” for failing to prove that ultra-processed foods directly caused the plaintiff’s injuries. Legal observers have compared the cases to early tobacco and opioid litigation while noting the difficulty of tying specific products to specific health outcomes.24Harvard Law School. The New Case Against Ultraprocessed Food