The Department of Justice Antitrust Division, joined by 17 state attorneys general, filed a civil antitrust complaint on June 30, 2026, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Iowa against Cal-Maine Foods Inc., Hickman's Egg Ranch Inc., and Versova Holdings LLC [1]. The complaint alleges that the three producers coordinated from approximately June 2022 through March 2025 to artificially inflate egg prices by manipulating benchmark price publications issued by Urner Barry, a commodity pricing service widely used as a reference in egg supply contracts [1][2]. Simultaneously with the filing, the DOJ submitted proposed consent decrees under the Tunney Act, under which all three defendants would resolve the claims without litigating to judgment [1].
Under the proposed settlements, the defendants would collectively pay $3.3 million to the 17 participating states and donate 53 million eggs to food banks across the country [1][2]. Each company would also be required to implement antitrust compliance programs and submit to monitoring [1]. The Tunney Act requires the DOJ to publish the proposed consent decrees in the Federal Register, accept public comment for 60 days, and then seek judicial approval, giving the district court independent authority to determine whether the settlement serves the public interest before entering final judgment [1].
Cal-Maine Foods, which is publicly traded and operates as the largest shell egg producer in the United States, along with privately held Hickman's Egg Ranch and Versova Holdings, each produces and distributes eggs nationally [2]. The complaint does not allege explicit price-coordination meetings but instead focuses on the alleged shared manipulation of Urner Barry's benchmark figures, which the government contends functioned as a mechanism to signal and align pricing across the industry [1]. The 17 attorneys general joined the federal action as co-plaintiffs, a posture that amplifies both the political visibility of the enforcement effort and the geographic breadth of claimed consumer harm [1].
The case proceeds under Section 1 of the Sherman Act and Section 16 of the Clayton Act, which authorize the government to seek injunctive relief in civil antitrust actions [1]. No criminal charges were filed. The DOJ's decision to pursue civil rather than criminal enforcement, paired with a simultaneous settlement, reflects a judgment that the conduct, while anticompetitive, did not meet the threshold for per se criminal price-fixing prosecution [2]. The consent decrees now enter the Tunney Act public-comment period, after which the government will move for final approval before the Iowa district court [1].