Farms: Ag Companies Push Out Generics

LINCOLN, Neb. (DTN) -- A farmer antitrust case brought against Syngenta and Corteva is moving forward after a federal court dismissed some claims in a lawsuit and allowed others to stand.

Following a court's order in January 2025, the group of 11 farmers from across the country filed an amended complaint on July 28, 2025.

The complaint alleges the companies used anticompetitive practices to maintain monopoly control over pesticides after their patent rights expired.

The farms also allege the companies used so-called loyalty programs to illegally block generic competitors from entering markets, forcing farmers to pay artificially inflated prices.

The amended complaint was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina after the court's order denied the companies' motion to dismiss but also ruled in favor of Syngenta and Corteva on several issues.

The new complaint names 11 plaintiff farms including Gavin Brothers, LLC in Illinois operated by Michael Shows; Matthew S. Taylor, Inc. who operates Hooper's Landscape and Nursery in Florida; Illinois farmer Clifton Kirven; Tennessee farmer Janie Yeargin; Donald F. Deline, who operates Deline Farms in Missouri; Wisconsin farmer Peter F. Bonin; Iron Horse Ranches in California, owned and managed by Robert Ott; Jones Planting Co. III, a Mississippi farm owned by Bernard Jones IV; Nebraska farmer Gary Bentzinger; Iowa farmer Brett Robberts; and Kansas farmer Chris Bole.

The class-action lawsuit says the plaintiffs are seeking to represent a larger class of "tens or hundreds of thousands" of farmers and other purchasers who bought the affected crop protection products during the class period beginning on Oct. 27, 2018.

The named plaintiffs grow various crops including corn, soybeans, cotton, wheat, citrus, almonds, cherries, peanuts, rice, hay and vegetables.

The federal court dismissed federal damage claims made in a previous complaint, since the plaintiff farmers bought crop protection products from distributors and retailers rather than directly from Syngenta and Corteva.

Most notably, in its January 2025 ruling and order, the court eliminated potential treble damages that typically are allowed in antitrust cases, giving Syngenta and Corteva a major victory.

Treble damages essentially are a tripling of damage amounts designed to prevent future antitrust violations. So, if a court awards a party $50 million then treble damages would make that $150 million.

Because the plaintiffs are commercial farmers and not personal or household consumers, the court dismissed various state consumer protection claims made under statutes in the District of Columbia, Missouri, Montana, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Utah, Virginia and Massachusetts.

The court also dismissed state consumer protection claims in Colorado, New York, South Dakota and Minnesota.

The court's order, however, allows the plaintiffs to pursue damages through a variety of state laws and to potentially stop alleged illegal loyalty programs. The court didn't dismiss the underlying antitrust conspiracy allegations.

ACTIVE INGREDIENTS

The amended complaint lists five Syngenta pesticide active ingredients and four from Corteva, for which the farmer plaintiffs allege the companies illegally used loyalty programs to maintain control of the active ingredients and their pricing.

The Syngenta active ingredients include azoxystrobin, mesotrione, metaolachlor, fomesafenand and lambda-cyhalothrin. The Corteva active ingredients listed include rimsulfuron, oxamyl, acetochlor and methoxyfenozide.

Syngenta's paraquat was included in the first amended complaint but not in the new filing.

For Corteva, methoxyfenozide was added to the list of active ingredients in question.

A companion lawsuit is ongoing in the same court, filed by the Federal Trade Commission and 10 state attorneys general, https://www.dtnpf.com/….

FARMER PLAINTIFF ALLEGATIONS

The farmer plaintiffs' amended lawsuit alleges the companies entered into agreements with distributors and retailers, requiring them to purchase 85% to 99% of their products containing specific active ingredients from Syngenta and Corteva.

The plaintiffs argue the agreements effectively locked generic manufacturers out of main distribution channels.

Federal law provides limited-time exclusivity for new active ingredients, the complaint said, meaning the defendants illegally extended their monopolies beyond what the law allows through exclusionary contracts.

"Defendants entice dealers to drastically limit sales of competing, less expensive generic products by paying distributors a kickback in the form of a share of the monopoly profits that the exclusionary contracts create," the farmers said in the new amended complaint.

"Defendants effectuate these payments through so-called 'loyalty programs,' but the terminology is pretextual. Due to defendants' exclusionary conduct, farmers have paid approximately 40% higher prices -- if not more -- for certain crop protection products than they would have paid in a competitive market. Also, due to the lack of competition, there is little innovation in these markets and farmers often have no choice but to purchase defendants' products."

The amended complaint cites a comment allegedly from an executive for a company that sells generics, "A distributor like 'Crop Production Services (now named Nutrien Ag Solutions) or Helena' has 'to maintain a certain percentage, usually a very high percentage, 90% of their buying purchases from a company, such as Syngenta, to maintain the rebates.' The loyalty agreements, according to the executive, 'leave very limited market share access for generics to participate in.'"

Read more on DTN:

"Chem Companies Defend Loyalty Programs," https://www.dtnpf.com/…

Todd Neeley can be reached at todd.neeley@dtn.com

Follow him on social platform X @DTNeeley

(c) Copyright 2025 DTN, LLC. All rights reserved.