Investigation into Egg Prices Unveils Potential Price Manipulation
For years, Americans have been grappling with the rising costs of everyday groceries. Among the most notable symbols of this frustration? Eggs.
As egg prices started climbing sharply in 2022, many were told that the rise was due to avian flu and a decline in supply. However, data from the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) indicated that the drop in egg-laying hens was not nearly significant enough to explain such dramatic price increases.
In January 2023, Farm Action called for an official investigation into these price hikes. Interestingly, at that time, Cal-Maine Foods, the largest egg producer in the U.S., reported no instances of avian flu at any of its locations while also posting substantially higher profits.
As prices surged again, further investigation seemed necessary. By February 2025, Farm Action made a second call for an investigation, citing ongoing concerns about the increasing prices and limited supply. Shortly thereafter, the Department of Justice (DOJ) opened an antitrust probe into the egg industry.
Recent developments have shed more light on the situation.
In June 2026, the DOJ filed an antitrust lawsuit claiming that Cal-Maine Foods, Hickman’s Egg Ranch, and Versova engaged in collusion for nearly three years to manipulate a crucial benchmark used to set egg prices nationwide.
The accusations are quite straightforward.
The DOJ’s complaint reveals that in October 2022, a Cal-Maine executive communicated with Hickman’s CEO, stating, “We are bidding up. Let’s hold it today.”
In December, Hickman’s CEO instructed team members to submit “strong bids, early and often” before market reporters began their day. When Versova made high bids that sellers tried to accept, its executives discussed removing those bids.
Further, they coordinated to set egg prices above the benchmark after noting that market reporters needed those higher sales to justify an increase. Then, in December 2024, a message from Cal-Maine’s former CEO to Hickman’s CEO read: “Let it rip.”
The DOJ argues that these interactions went beyond harmless exchanges; the companies allegedly worked together on bids and transactions to artificially boost price quotes from Urner Barry, which impacts what grocery stores and restaurants pay for billions of eggs. This supposed collusion has led to increased prices for retailers and consumers alike.
If these allegations hold true, they directly violate the principles of antitrust laws intended to foster competition in a free market.
Yet, there’s an unsettling aspect to the DOJ’s proposed resolution of this case: are the consequences strong enough to prevent future misconduct?
Under the suggested agreements, the companies would face restrictions on how they communicate with each other, adopt antitrust compliance programs, and be subject to oversight. Additionally, they would incur monetary penalties and make egg donations.
For Cal-Maine, these obligations could total around $2.8 million.
This seems a bit minimal when weighed against the roughly $1.22 billion profit Cal-Maine reported for the fiscal year 2025. The total obligation, then, equates to about 0.23% of its yearly profit.
Importantly, the companies do not admit to any wrongdoing. There will be no trial, and no executives mentioned in the DOJ’s complaint have faced criminal charges.
This situation raises serious concerns for anyone who supports fair competition and equitable legal enforcement.
Antitrust laws should not be seen as opposing business; in fact, they should protect businesses that operate ethically. If the government does not impose meaningful penalties for anti-competitive behavior, honest businesses, farmers, and consumers ultimately suffer. Companies that follow the rules shouldn’t have to compete against those who allegedly engage in covert coordination.
Moreover, if penalties can just be absorbed as part of the corporate budget, how can they possibly deter illegal activity?
Farm Action is formally pushing back against the proposed settlements.
Per federal antitrust law, a court must decide if these proposed judgments serve the public interest. Until October 17, the public can express opposition to the suggestions by submitting comments to the DOJ.
There’s a growing frustration among Americans regarding the rising grocery prices and the sense that powerful organizations seem to operate with different rules.
If the DOJ stands by its allegations, it should seek consequences that reflect their seriousness. Price fixing cannot simply be accepted as a normal business expense.
