Legal

Bayer Proposes Class Settlement Deal in Monsanto’s Roundup Litigation

Thu, 19 Feb 2026 14:36:07 GMT

Announced today, Bayer’s subsidiary Monsanto has reached a class settlement deal —pending court approval—to reach the company’s goal of containing glyphosate litigation.

The deal includes $7.25 billion over 21 years for current and future glyphosate cases.

Almost two years ago, then-new CEO Bill Anderson said it was his goal to have the legal liabilities “under control” by 2026, which had weighed on Bayer. Company leaders said the settlement provides the greatest possible closure for the Roundup litigation by addressing all present and potential claims of non-Hodgkin-lymphoma (NHL) allegedly due to Roundup exposure.

In his statement today, Anderson said the company is “choosing speed and containment over a lengthy battle in the courts.”

“Today’s announcement does not take away from the truth, a truth that scientists and regulators around the planet continue to uphold: that glyphosate is a safe and essential tool for farmers in the U.S. and around the world,” Anderson said.

He continued, “This settlement comes at a cost, even beyond its direct monetary price. It has cost employees their jobs. It’s diverted funding away from new medicines and new seeds and towards litigation, an industry that costs the average U.S. household more than four thousand dollars every year. So, while this settlement is necessary for the company today, we maintain our significant objections to the broken tort system that makes it necessary.”

The settlement is filed in the Circuit Court of the City of St. Louis, Missouri. The class includes people who allege Roundup exposure before Feb. 17, 2026 and who already have NHL or are diagnosed within 16 years after final court approval.

“With more than 40,000 Roundup personal injury non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma claims already in court or under tolling agreements, new filings arriving daily, a pending Supreme Court petition that could restrict plaintiffs’ recovery rights, and crowded dockets offering limited trial dates, Motley Rice began negotiating with other proposed class counsel to reach a settlement with Monsanto,” said Motley Rice co-founder and settlement negotiator, Joseph F. Rice. “I believe this $7.25 billion proposed national class settlement reached in Missouri state court is the best path forward to finally bring the Roundup® litigation to a closing chapter. Based on the hard work of class counsel and Monsanto’s counsel, both occupational and residential exposures will be covered, the rights of future claimants have been uniquely protected, and payments should begin in 2026.”

Six years ago, Bayer proposed a class settlement which did not move forward. That proposal was limited to four years of funding and future litigation beyond those four years required an expert science panel for determination of qualifications.

Beyond the class proposal, Bayer says it has reached separate confidential agreements to settle certain other Roundup cases.

Today’s news comes one month after the Supreme Court agreed to hear one of the cases , referred to as a the Durnell case, which calls into question federal preemption of pesticide labels.

Florida Strawberry Growers File Major Antidumping Petitions Against Mexican Imports

Tue, 20 Jan 2026 00:49:54 GMT

A group of strawberry growers filed petitions alleging that low-priced imports from Mexico have injured the winter strawberry industry in Florida . Imports covered under this petition include all fresh and chilled strawberries that enter the U.S. and are sold between Nov. 1 and March 31.

The Strawberry Growers for Fair Trade filed the petitions with the U.S. Department of Commerce and the U.S. International Trade Commission, stating the Mexican strawberry industry has distorted the U.S. market and injured the American industry and its workers.

Daniel Pickard, International Trade and National Security practice group leader at Buchanan Ingersoll & Rooney and lead counsel for the growers that filed the petition, says this action has come after nearly 20-plus years of growers seeking relief. This includes engaging with the U.S. Trade Representatives and the U.S. International Trade Commission.

Pickard says that while the U.S. International Trade Commission began monitoring imports under section 332, growers still did not see relief.

“It’s the fact that this industry has been suffering for more than two decades, and really the U.S. antidumping law is one of the only laws out there that industries can use when they feel like they’re being injured as a result of unfair import competition,” he says. “I bring antidumping cases for a living. There’s a point where people say, ‘Enough is enough. We don’t really have any other options right now.’”

And Pickard says many industries have sought relief through antidumping petitions.

“We are at a period where kind of historical high levels of antidumping investigation are being filed, not just in ag, it’s across multiple industries,” he says. “This is, I think, front and center in the news just about every day. The idea, not just under this administration, but for the past two administrations, and a focus on revitalizing U.S. production and the USA.”

Criteria for Proving Injury

Pickard says the timeline for the proceedings will likely be a decision within 20 to 45 days of the first filing to either dismiss or formally initiate the case. First, the ITC will determine if the case shows injury.

“The U.S. International Trade Commission will make a determination whether there is, ‘a reasonable indication of material injury or threat of material injury by reason of the Mexican imports,’” he says. “The ITC typically goes affirmative at that preliminary determination as well. The domestic industry only needs to show a reasonable indication of harm.”

Pickard says he’s currently answering some questions about domestic injury from the Department of Commerce.

“The ITC really looks at three primary sets,” he says. “No. 1, what is the volume of imports specifically? Have they increased absolutely or by market share? The second thing that they look at is whether imports have had negative price effects. And you see this historically in two major ways, either are the Mexican prices below the U.S. price, which is called underselling, or have imports generally put downward pressure on prices so that they’re suppressing or depressing U.S. prices. And then the third thing ITC looks at is whether there’s been a negative impact as it affected the growers, production, their commercial shipment, their profitability, their ability to invest.”

Then, the Department of Commerce will launch an investigation into the claims.

“They’ll make their preliminary determination whether there is dumping and the extent of dumping, generally at about five to six months after the filing of the case,” Pickard says. “So that’s going to get us to basically summertime, and as of that date, that’s when antidumping duties start to be collected.”

Then, he says, the ITC will conduct its formal hearing on the impact to the domestic industry.

“From a lawyer’s perspective, these things move at a rocket pace,” Pickard says. “We’re not talking about litigation that’s going to drag on for years and years. We’ll have a final determination within 13 months.”

Cautious Optimism for Industry Survival

Pickard says one thing that’s unique about this antidumping case is that it’s using a regional analysis, which, in this case, is Florida.

“The ICC has traditionally looked at whether a nationwide industry has been injured, but Congress passed a law decades ago that allows the ICC to also do what’s called a regional analysis and say, when examining the injury, is there a region that is particularly injured?” he says. “We’re arguing that really there are kind of two regions in the United States. You’ve got California growers and what’s going on in the Western United States, and then you’ve got strawberry production, which is concentrated in Florida and primarily sold in the Eastern states. And Florida growers’ season directly matches the majority of the Mexican strawberry growing season. And here it’s important for the ITC to conduct our regional analysis to specifically look at the impact of these imports on the Florida growers.”

Pickard says the growers he represents are cautiously optimistic but also understand just how long it’s taken to get to this point.

“I think people are very hopeful, but they’re also kind of cautiously optimistic that the industry has tried to get relief in a couple of different forms over the years, and it just hasn’t worked,” he says. “So now there’s this new option and these trade cases, if they’re successful. It’s not an overstatement to say that they can literally save domestic industries, but I think people are also cautious in their optimism in light of just how long this problem has been going on without any real relief.”

Attorney Warns Growers That Delegating Labor Recruitment Offers No Legal Immunity

Tue, 20 Jan 2026 00:44:18 GMT

Gonzalo Peralta, a Michigan-based immigration lawyer and senior staff attorney at the Michigan Immigrant Rights Center (MIRC) in Grand Rapids, Mich., says that when two farmworkers, Feliciano Velasco Rojas and Luis Guzman Rojas, first came forward, it was evident that there were problematic issues with how the men found their way to Michigan.

“The manner in which they were transported clearly threats — all sorts of harm being essentially innuendoed by this individual, who was actually the one who physically transported our clients, were utilized to kind of compel their transportation,” Peralta says. “And then their subsequent working in these particularly egregious conditions.”

Uncovering Conditions of Coercion and Overcrowding

Peralta says this includes working 12-hour days and 30 people living in a small home.

“They were all crammed in a singular house,” Peralta says. “That was nearly 30 people in an unfurnished singular residence that had, I think, only three bedrooms. You had multiple people just sleeping on the floor in the basement. This is the housing that they were provided by the individual who physically transported and trafficked them for the purposes of working for First Pick in its blueberry operation.”

And Peralta says this case is unfortunately far more usual than reported.

“I wish it was the case that it was less common,” he says. “I fear that is much, much greater and much more common a problem than what is culturally understood.”

Peralta says workers who are trafficked might not understand that their working conditions could merit a legal intervention. And, quite simply, the workers are afraid that speaking up might jeopardize future employment.

“We believe it’s a much more common issue than is reported because of the particular vulnerabilities that the victims themselves have, particularly when they come in through the H-2 program, because they want to ensure that they can come in under those visas in the future,” he says. “And that means being beholden to an employer that may have been engaging in not only unlawful labor practices but trafficking as well.”

The Legal Foundation of the Lawsuit

In 2023, Feliciano Velasco Rojas and Luis Guzman Rojas filed a lawsuit against First Pick Farms , a blueberry operation in West Olive, Mich.

The original lawsuit alleges Guzman, Velasco and 30 other H-2A workers were trafficked from North Carolina to First Pick Farms and worked long hours in unsafe housing. The lawsuit also alleges supervisors threatened immigration enforcement and deportation to keep the workers from complaining or leaving.

The defendants, First Pick Farms and several related corporate entities such as Grow Blue Farms and HB Hive and Company, sought to dismiss the case in two motions in late 2024. In 2025, U.S. Magistrate Judge Sally J. Berens ruled that the trafficking claims by Guzman and Velasco stand.

And on Jan. 2, 2026, Judge Paul Maloney of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Michigan allowed the human trafficking and labor violation claims to proceed to the discovery phase .

Vindicating the Rights of H-2A Workers

As for the case moving forward, Peralta says he expects a mixed reaction to the case moving forward.

“I’m not going to be able to speak directly for on behalf of my clients, but I know that they were excited about the fact that the case is moving forward, but I feel that anyone who’s in these situations has some trepidation of unearthing these feelings or having to relive these past traumas, so I think that there is a mixed emotional response to the progress of this case,” he says. “Obviously, we are happy that this is going to be able to finally proceed so that we can try to vindicate the rights of our clients. Clearly, we believe in the basis for the lawsuit. We believe that the law was broken by these employers. And so there should be some recompense.”

Peralta, too, says he’s happy with how Maloney’s opinion lent credibility to the workers’ claims, especially facing the arguments made by the defendants in the motion to dismiss.

“A lot of the language in the opinion validates the issues that the plaintiffs have stated in their claim,” he says. “And so we’re happy that we can actually begin the process to ensure that people are made aware that this is a situation and hopefully for our particular clients that they get some sort of justice for the ills that were imposed upon them, essentially.”

Peralta says it’s crucial to take away that the plaintiffs met the necessary criteria to make a valid trafficking claim and violations of the Agricultural Worker Protection Act, despite the motions to dismiss.

“[The defendants] argued that as long as an employer would be able to say, we never ordered someone to do something illegal, that that should immunize them from the bad acts of their employee,” Peralta says. “And we’re glad that the judge was able to see through this and allowed the case to proceed based on the trafficking claims.”

And, because the defendants were initially brought to the U.S. through the H-2A guestworker visa program and then taken from the original employer, this also triggers federal law.

“Based on the fact that our clients were initially H-2A workers, and then when they were taken en route from their initial H-2A employer, that triggers the need for the federal law, the Agricultural Worker Protection Act,” he says. “Those particular obligations would trigger even when an employer is behaving in this manner. And so, again, the judge recognized that correctly, and those claims are allowed to continue as well.”

And Peralta says he awaits a scheduling notification from the court, which will lay out the timeline for the next steps for discovery and the interchange of information and documentation.

“We don’t have an exact timeline until the judges set that timeline, but we anticipate for the next six to 12 months that’s what we’ll be focusing on,” he says.

Why Delegation Fails as a Corporate Defense

Peralta says it’s important to remember it’s not enough for an employer to just delegate a particular person to be responsible, thus absolving the company from bearing the brunt of any potential legal implications.

“This trend for employers to try to create a legal buffer from responsibility by delegating certain responsibilities, delegating recruitment, delegating supervision, that should not be a reason to immunize them from unlawful acts that go on on their property, on their work sites,” he says. “I think that the judge recognized that.”

UPDATE: Supreme Court Did Not Issue Ruling on Tariffs Case, Decision Still Pending

Wed, 14 Jan 2026 12:31:51 GMT

UPDATE: The U.S. Supreme Court chose not to release its ruling on President Trump’s global tariffs Wednesday. A decision is still pending.

The U.S. Supreme Court is expected to issue one or more rulings on Wednesday in cases already argued before the justices as major legal disputes remain pending, including litigation testing the legality of President Donald Trump’s global tariffs.

The court is set to release rulings at about 10 a.m. ET (1500 GMT). The court does not announce ahead of time which rulings it intends to issue. The court issued one ruling last Friday but did not act in the tariffs case, which was argued on Nov. 5.

The challenge to Trump’s tariffs marks a major test of presidential powers as well as of the court’s willingness to check some of the Republican president’s far-reaching assertions of authority since he returned to office in January 2025. The outcome will impact the global economy.

During arguments in the case, conservative and liberal justices appeared to cast doubt on the legality of the tariffs, which Trump imposed by invoking a 1977 law meant for use during national emergencies. Trump’s administration is appealing rulings by lower courts that he overstepped his authority.

Trump invoked the International Emergency Economic Powers Act to impose so-called “reciprocal” tariffs on goods imported from individual countries — nearly every foreign trading partner — to address what he called a national emergency related to U.S. trade deficits. He invoked the same law to impose tariffs on China, Canada and Mexico, citing the trafficking of the often-abused painkiller fentanyl and illicit drugs into the U.S. as a national emergency.

The challenges to the tariffs in the cases before the Supreme Court were brought by businesses affected by the tariffs and 12 U.S. states, most of them Democratic-governed.

Other cases awaiting rulings include disputes concerning voting rights, religious rights, Trump’s firing of a Federal Trade Commission member, LGBT “conversion therapy” and campaign finance limits, among others.

(Reporting by Andrew Chung; Editing by Will Dunham)

New California Law Focuses on Long-Term Water Planning

Tue, 07 Oct 2025 16:19:06 GMT

A bill with unanimous support is basically a unicorn in today’s divided politics, so California just saw the return of a water-planning unicorn in the form of SB 72 that Gov. Gavin Newsom signed into law Oct. 1 .

Prior to being signed, the bill — effectively an update to the California Water Plan that enforces the need for quantifiable water needs reports and water goals — passed through the state’s legislature without any “no” votes.

This also isn’t the first time it happened. Past iterations of the bill also received unanimous support, but this is the first time the governor signed it.

According to Jason Phillips, CEO of the Friant Water Authority — which supplies water to over a million acres of irrigated farmland in the San Joaquin Valley — the overwhelming and repeated legislative support shows a shift in the understanding of the state’s dire water situation.

“It is an acknowledgment that water conservation is not going to solve the supply deficit both current and projected that we have in this state,” he says.

The bill’s author, state Sen. Anna Caballero , District 14, said in an early September press meeting that the cost of this inaction has been borne mostly by California’s farmers. This is especially true in the San Joaquin Valley, a massive center of the state’s fresh produce production.

She said that the state’s water challenges have resulted in “a scenario where fallowing land has become the norm as a way to make it through the growing season.”

Caballero also characterized that fallowing of farmland as threatening the entire state’s economy — currently the fourth-largest in the world — to the tune of up to $14.5 billion and 67,000 jobs annually .

“It’s all the ripple effect that comes from taking millions of acres out of irrigated lands in California, and we just need to understand that that’s just in one region,” she said.

About the Bill

Caballero said that the California Water Plan “hasn’t seen meaningful revisions in 20 years,” but Phillips characterizes SB 72 as an effort to solve that issue.

“This bill is going to mandate that the California Water Plan do what it was supposed to do and what it used to do, which is identify the water needs of the regions of the state of California, both now and in the future, and put together a plan on how those needs will get met,” he says.

The bill creates a planning framework with deadlines that will require the state to establish long-term water supply targets and strategies to reach them. One of the earliest goals of the bill requires that, by 2028, the California Department of Water Resources creates plans on how it will achieve 9 million acre feet “of additional water, water conservation, or water storage capacity” annually by 2040.

Philips called the efforts necessary to achieve such a goal “no small planning task.”

“This is a very significant task that the state will have to go through to identify how [it’s] going to come up with 9 million acre feet per year statewide and with storage and conservation, recycling and desal,” he says.

California’s Current Crisis

Despite the daunting task, Phillips says there’s no real choice; the state must ensure there is water for farms and people today and into the future. But that goal can’t be achieved through the popular narratives, he adds.

“Water conservation is what people want to go to first when thinking of farmers,” he says. “But agricultural use in the San Joaquin Valley is already about maximized on water conservation.”

Phillips says the only things that will help solve the water challenges in the over 5.5 million acres of productive farmland in the San Joaquin Valley are more surface water to offset the groundwater overdraft or to permanently retire over a million acres of productive farmland. This would be in addition to the farms and farmland already lost.

According to USDA National Agricultural Statistics Service records, there were 24.3 million acres of land in farms in 2020. This compares to 2024 when there were only 23.7 million acres . The number of individual farms also fell from 69,600 operations to 62,500 in that time.

Policy and Planning

“The most unfortunate form of [water] conservation that we have in this state is people leaving and farms leaving,” Phillips says. This exodus of farms from California is not a policy decision but instead the result of inaction and a lack of reporting on current conditions, he adds.

“The governor of the state of California needs to have that presented with that; [farm loss is] a policy decision,” he says. “It needs to be highlighted to policymakers that we either find a way to develop that water or we’re going to lose a substantial amount of productive agriculture.”

That needs to change, and he hopes SB 72’s passage and the reporting requirements it contains will help.

“My engagement is going to be to make sure there is a thoughtful and thorough assessment of the water supply situation that we have today,” he says. “It’s very quantifiable and needs to be quantified.”

Apeel Sciences Sues ‘Green Smoothie Girl’

Fri, 05 Sep 2025 10:05:13 GMT

Food technology company Apeel Sciences says it’s been under attack since 2023 by a widespread disinformation campaign aimed against the company and its primary technology — a plant based, edible coating that extends freshness and reduces spoilage of produce. On Sept. 3, the Goleta, Calif.-based company said it had filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida against one of those alleged disseminators of disinformation: wellness influencer Robyn Openshaw and her company, GreenSmoothieGirl.com Inc.

In the lawsuit, Apeel accuses Openshaw and her company of waging a yearslong disinformation campaign intended to harm Apeel’s business and reputation.

Apeel says the lawsuit asserts claims for false advertising under the Lanham Act; defamation; trade libel; disparagement of perishable agricultural products; tortious interference with business relationships; and unfair and deceptive trade practices.

According to the complaint, Openshaw — known online as the “Green Smoothie Girl” — began posting false claims about Apeel in July 2023. Between then and May 2025, she published at least 60 posts across Instagram, YouTube, X, Rumble, her own website and elsewhere online falsely stating Apeel’s plant-based coating is toxic and that Apeel’s products are made with solvents and heavy metals, the company said in a news release.

Luis Beling is CEO of Apeel Sciences, a food technology company that produces a plant-based, edible coating that extends freshness and reduces spoilage of produce.

(Photo courtesy of Apeel Sciences)

“Beginning in 2023, a coordinated disinformation campaign weaponized countless falsehoods to undermine the verified safety of Apeel’s products, stifle innovation, and profit from deception,” Apeel Sciences CEO Luiz Beling told The Packer in an email. “But bad actors cannot act maliciously without accountability. We have therefore taken legal action to protect our reputation, our products, and the countless Apeel teammates who work each day to make the world a better place.”

Among the “malicious” actions alleged in the lawsuit are that Openshaw used false claims to rally her “Green Smoothie Girl Army” of followers to boycott Apeel, urging them to pressure retailers such as Costco, suppliers such as Limoneira and Driscoll’s, and others to abandon Apeel-protected produce.

Apeel says she also published the personal contact information of executives at grocery chains, encouraged phone, email and in-store campaigns, and sold a downloadable “wallet card” listing stores that did not sell Apeel-treated produce.

In some posts, Openshaw falsely claimed Apeel used a chemical found in “gasoline” in its process, and in others, she said the company’s products contained “palladium, arsenic, lead, cadmium and mercury,” the release said.

The complaint says Openshaw’s statements misrepresented FDA filings and omitted facts showing Apeel’s commercial process has never used the solvents Openshaw described.

Apeel says, in fact, its primary technology is a plant-based, edible coating that extends the freshness of produce without the need for refrigeration or synthetic preservatives. It is tasteless, odorless and made from naturally occurring ingredients such as mono- and diglycerides, baking soda and citric acid. These coatings mimic a fruit’s natural peel to slow spoilage, reduce food waste and lower grocery costs. The company adds that its products are approved by regulators in the U.S., the European Union and dozens of other markets worldwide.

‘Freedom of Speech’ vs. ‘Freedom to Defame’

Apeel’s legal representation says the implications of the disinformation campaign are far reaching and financially harmful.

“Apeel has been the victim of a deliberate smear campaign that weaponized disinformation for financial gain,” Thomas A. Clare, one of the founding partners of Clare Locke LLP, which represents Apeel, said in a release. “These falsehoods were not just defamatory. They misled consumers and caused real financial harm to Apeel, its employees and its partners.

“Free speech does not mean freedom to defame,” Clare continued. “This lawsuit is about accountability, and ensuring disinformation cannot be used to destabilize safe and needed innovation and mislead the public.”

Social Media Disinformation

The lawsuit follows actress Michelle Pfeiffer’s July 31, 2025, retraction of inaccurate social media claims about Apeel and its connection to Bill Gates. Pfeiffer acknowledged reposting false information and emphasized the importance of accuracy in public conversations about food safety.

Apeel says the case is part of a larger disinformation campaign that began in April 2023, when dozens of coordinated posts spread across Facebook, X and Telegram warned consumers not to “eat anything with the Apeel sticker on it.” Those posts falsely linked to a safety sheet for an unrelated industrial cleaner manufactured by a wholly different company based in the United Kingdom, presenting it as if it described Apeel’s products.

The complaint states that Openshaw amplified those narratives to her hundreds of thousands of followers, repeating them at least 60 times and intentionally mischaracterizing Apeel’s FDA submissions. Independent fact checks by Reuters, the Associated Press, USA Today and Politifact later confirmed the claims were false and that Apeel’s products are safe and FDA-approved.

Despite this, Apeel said Openshaw and other influencers continued to drive the false narrative, creating consumer fear, harassment of retail partners and disruption of the company’s business.

“Our hope is for an amicable resolution in litigation we pursue, including a retraction of false posts to set the record straight,” Beling told The Packer. “Apeel Sciences will continue to vigorously protect its name, its mission, and the trust of consumers everywhere.”

For more information about Apeel’s products, ingredient safety and global mission, visit its FAQ or read company leadership’s open letter on disinformation here .

Your next read:

Used Farm Equipment Swindle Alert: BBB Warns Virtual Vendor Vehicle Scams on the Rise

Fri, 22 Aug 2025 16:50:12 GMT

The Better Business Bureau (BBB) is warning used equipment buyers nationwide about another sophisticated scam involving used farm equipment.

This particular grift, according to a press release from BBB, involved a fake online heavy equipment retailer impersonating a legitimate Missouri dealership, Cook Equipment & Trucking (Marble Hill, Mo.).

Buyers from across the U.S., some even from as far away as California and Arizona, reported losing a total of $223,000 after attempting to purchase heavy equipment and farm machinery through fraudulent websites and Facebook Marketplace ads.

Related: Essential Advice for Safely Buying Used Farm Machinery

Victims say they were “ghosted” after wiring money for equipment that never arrived. The BBB does not say whether the victims were able to dispute the fraudulent charges and claw back the proceeds from the scammers.

The reported fraudulent transactions include:

$45,000 for a skid steer loader from a buyer in Oak Hills, Calif.
$32,000 for an excavator from a buyer in Hancock, Mich.
$29,500 for a trailer from a buyer in Amanda, Ohio
$29,000 for a trailer from a buyer in Greenville, N.C.
$28,000 for a skid steer loader from a buyer in Eastman, Wis.
$31,000 for an excavator from a buyer in Des Moines, Iowa.
$29,000 for a skid steer from a buyer in Blue, Ariz.

BBB says the real Cook Equipment & Trucking, a small business operating since 2010, confirmed it has no website and is not affiliated with any online sales. The impersonators registered three fake websites, the most recent on July 14, and continue to run deceptive ads on social media.

“Those shopping for heavy equipment and farm machinery online should do their due diligence so they don’t fall victim to a virtual vehicle vendor scam,” says Michelle L. Corey, president and CEO, BBB St. Louis. “If an item is priced well below market value, that’s a red flag.”

To avoid getting swept up in an online virtual vehicle vendor scam the Better Business Bureau offers these tips:

Research the business at bbb.org or call 888-996-3887
Be skeptical of deals that seem too good to be true
Verify the website and contact the business directly
Read all terms and understand refund policies
Use a credit card for added protection
Report scams to BBB Scam Tracker, your state attorney general, the FTC, and the FBI’s Internet Crime Complaint Center , and notify the social media platform where the fraud was discovered

To learn more about how to avoid online fraud in the used equipment auction world, check out BBB’s 2024 study on virtual vehicle vendor scams.

Your next read: U.S.-Canada Trade Spat Leaves Farmer’s New Holland Combine Stranded Up North

Johanna Foods Sues U.S. Government Over Brazilian Import Tariffs

Thu, 24 Jul 2025 19:19:17 GMT

Johanna Foods and Johanna Beverage Co., producers and distributors of fruit juices, drinks and yogurt, have sued the U.S. government, alleging unauthorized imposition of tariffs on orange juice imports from Brazil, according to a filing in the U.S. Court of International Trade.

The companies say the move violates the International Emergency Economic Powers Act and the Constitution.

In the filings, Johanna Foods and Johanna Beverage Co. purport to supply nearly 75% of all private-label, not-from-concentrate juice, as well as for two large branded orange juice providers. The companies also state that Brazil is the world’s leading producer of orange juice and is the second-largest supplier of orange juice to the U.S., comprising more than half the orange juice sold in the U.S.

The suit challenges President Donald Trump’s plan to impose 50% tariffs on all goods from Brazil, saying it will cause significant financial harm. The companies estimate an additional cost of $68 million for a 12-month period, claiming that the figure exceeds any single year of profits in the 30-year history of the business.

The companies cite a disruption in the ability to plan and meet production requirements and manage cash flow, as well as an “unmanageable financial burden,” which the companies say cannot be absorbed by their current profit margin.

Johanna Foods and Johanna Beverage Co. also point to the potential impact on employees through layoffs, reduced production capacity and “an existential threat to the sustainability of our business, which supports almost 700 American jobs and contributes significantly to the economies of New Jersey and Washington state.”

The companies also project the cost increase passed on to consumers will be about 20% to 25% of the retail price.

Government agencies and officials named in the suit include the executive office of the president; U.S. Customs and Border Protection and its acting commissioner, Pete Flores; U.S. Trade Representative Jamieson Greer and the USTR office; and Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick.

Nearly $1M in Cocaine Allegedly Found in Truck Hauling Frozen Raspberries

Mon, 21 Jul 2025 20:50:52 GMT

Officers from the U.S. Customs and Border Protection Office of Field Operations at the Laredo Port of Entry recently seized alleged cocaine totaling more than $996,000 in street value.

CBP says officers seized packages containing 74.6 pounds of suspected cocaine at the World Trade Bridge in a tractor-trailer hauling frozen raspberries. Officers found the narcotics during a secondary nonintrusive physical inspection, according to the agency.

The officers discovered the 32 packages within the trailer’s batteries, according to CBP, which adds that the suspected narcotics have an estimated street value of $996,114.

“The unwavering commitment and sharp instincts of our frontline CBP officers contributed to a remarkable seizure,” says Alberto Flores, port director for the Laredo Port of Entry. “This seizure speaks volumes about our CBP officers’ dedication to protecting our borders.”

Appeals Court Upholds USDA Certification

Thu, 17 Jul 2025 18:07:21 GMT

The U.S. 9^th Circuit Court of Appeals upheld a part of USDA’s organic standards that had been challenged by Pratum Farm, an organic hazelnut farm in Salem, Ore., and its owners Bruce and Paula Kaser.

Pratum Farm argued that a USDA regulation favors foreign imports and allows for a small percentage of farms within the group to undergo on-site inspections.

The U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon dismissed the original lawsuit , and the 9^th Circuit Court of Appeals dismissed the appeal by Pratum Farms.

The court determined that Pratum Farms failed to present facts to show injury and does not have an ownership interest in the USDA Organic seal and that the company failed to show the regulation caused competitive injury and imminent economic injury.

“This decision affirms that grower group certification, while managed differently, is still a credible and rigorous form of organic oversight,” the Organic Trade Association wrote in a ruling summary.

Overcome the No. 1 Challenge in Passing Down Your Family Farm

Tue, 01 Jul 2025 21:16:05 GMT

Between now and 2048, about $124 trillion is expected to exchange hands from older to younger generations in the U.S., according to Cerulli Associates, a Boston-based market research firm.

For perspective, that dollar amount is approximately five times the size of the 2023 U.S. Gross Domestic Product (GDP), which totaled $27.72 trillion.

How will farmers fit into what many people are calling the “Great Wealth Exchange” over the next two decades? Much of it is specific to land, according to the American Farmland Trust (AFT). It predicts 300 million acres of U.S. agricultural land will change hands in the next 20 years.

Based on $5,000 an acre for farm ground, Paul Neiffer, the Farm CPA, estimates that would be a transfer of between $1.5 trillion and $2 trillion in land from older farmers to younger generations.

“If you throw in rangeland, that’s another trillion, so $3 to $4 trillion at most is where I think we’re at,” Neiffer says.

The Reason Succession Often Fails

A common issue is that while 69% of farmers plan to transfer their operation to a younger family member, only 23% have a plan , according to AgAmerica Lending LLC.

But the No. 1 issue that trips up people in the succession planning process is most people – farmers included – focus more on the mechanics involved in transferring assets than on keeping their family relationships intact.

That’s according to Amy Castoro, CEO and president of The Williams Group, a family coaching and consulting organization. Her firm does relationship planning to help family members make sure they’re still speaking to each other after the wealth transfers.

Many times, she says, the friction in the transfer of wealth has little to do with money and material goods and a whole lot more to do with whether the family members involved felt loved.

A Formula For Success

The Williams Group did a 20-year field study and from that developed a formula for how people need to focus their time and energy in the succession process.

The company recommends spending:
60% of your time on building family trust and developing good communication practices;

25% preparing your heirs to take over the operation, laying the business and fiscal groundwork for the farm to continue under their leadership;

10% of your time getting on the same page about your family’s values and having a family mission;

5% of your time on the estate planning mechanics, the nuts and bolts of how the assets will transfer.

In addition, The Williams Group advises that you work with your heirs to:

Strike a balance between control and collaboration.
Embrace the next generation’s perspectives.
Bolster intergenerational solidarity.
Embed high-trust behaviors.
Co-design standards for readiness.

Start The Plan Sooner, Not Later

If you want to see your farm succeed with the next generation of family members, make sure you have the right structure in place – and set it up sooner than later. Don’t put it off, Neiffer advises.

Once you have a plan in place, you have a tool you can modify to fit what your family and farm need over time.

“Having a plan in place can help alleviate stress, even if things change down the road,” Neiffer says. “Keep in mind that farming is a dynamic business and your plan needs to be, too.”

Your next read: Big Questions Remain For Next Gen Farmers

Senate Ag Committee Pens Windfall Funding to Specialty Crops

Fri, 13 Jun 2025 13:33:25 GMT

On June 11, the Senate Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry released its legislative text for the budget reconciliation bill . The expansive text covers numerous topics, including funding changes to crop insurance, livestock programs and several ag-focused grants, as well as extensive changes to the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program.

“This legislation delivers the risk management tools and updated farm bill safety net they need to keep producing the safest, most abundant and affordable food, fuel and fiber in the world,” says Committee Chairman John Boozman, R-Ark., in a news release. “It’s an investment in rural America and the future of agriculture

For the fresh produce industry, there were some considerable investments in the draft text.

“The specialty crop research initiative funding was up from its current $80 million a year to $175 million a year,” Kam Quarles, National Potato Council CEO, tells The Packer. “That is very significant for the fruit and vegetable industry widely.”

Quarles also cites the increases in the Pest and Disease Program funding — $90 million annually starting in 2026, up from $75 million currently — and to the Specialty Block Grant program — $100 million annually in 2026, up from $85 million currently — as being essential to the specialty crop industry. Additionally, the limitation on adjusted gross income was eliminated if 75% or more income is derived from farming

“We are grateful to Chairman Boozman and his staff for advancing these vital investments in specialty crops,” the Specialty Crop Farm Bill Alliance said in a news release.

“Our message today is simple: Any Congressional investment in American agriculture must include specialty crops,” the release continues. “America’s specialty crop growers confront a host of unprecedented challenges. Rising input costs, limited access to labor, unfair trade practices, disruptions to foreign markets and natural disasters ranging from flood to drought all impede the competitiveness of these family farms. Nothing short of the survival of our domestic industry is at stake.”

Reconciliation vs Farm Bill

While the U.S. is waiting on a new farm bill, many elements that might have gone into a farm bill are making their way into the reconciliation bill.

“Chairman Thompson was playing the hand that he was dealt in terms of reconciliation versus the traditional farm bill process,” says Quarles about Rep. Glenn Thompson, R-Pa., chairman of the House Committee on Agriculture. “Chairman Bozeman is doing the exact same thing, and we are very happy that both sides of Congress have included these important investments for specialty crops.”

There is still work to be done, however, according to the Specialty Crop Farm Bill Alliance.

“Senate rules prohibit the inclusion of some innovative policy initiatives we proposed, such as investments in mechanization and automation, and reforms to crop insurance to provide many of our growers with an affordable and effective safety net for the first time,” according to the alliance.

Quarles explains that the reconciliation bill process only allows for funding changes, not the creation of new funding programs; that requires a full farm bill. But both the Specialty Crop Farm Bill Alliance and the National Potato Council, which is a member of the alliance, thanked both ag committee chairmen for their efforts.

“No subsection of agriculture has gone through more change and volatility since the last farm bill was signed than specialty crops,” Quarles says. “Waiting around for a new farm bill has been very challenging for producers, and we are very happy to see both chairmen taking that seriously and investing in this part of the U.S. ag industry.”

Research is American produce’s path forward

Investing in research is extremely important to the future of the produce industry, Quarles stresses.

“The innovation that goes on through public private partnerships in research in the United States is what is going to keep us competitive into the future,” he says. “In terms of our global competitiveness, it’s going to be those type of research investments that keep us in the game and hopefully winning that game.”

He acknowledges research is often time-consuming, complicated, expensive and often so technical as to be out of mind for a lot of people, but the benefits are key. He cites novel potato varieties that are more durable, heartier and consume fewer resources developed with public-private partnerships as an example of the value of research.

“I don’t think there’s any doubt that we are going to be one of the highest-cost production areas on the globe for a very long time,” Quarles says. “But we are going to remain competitive through these types of high-risk, high-reward research innovations that are able to prepare our producers forward even when others have the tailwind of low-cost labor or lower environmental regulations.”

“It’s our innovation that’s going to keep us front and center,” he adds.

California Berry Cultivars responds to Driscoll’s legal challenge

Wed, 28 May 2025 13:27:15 GMT

California Berry Cultivars LLC has released a statement on the latest development in an ongoing legal dispute with Watsonville, Calif.-based berry grower Driscoll’s.

The lawsuit stems from Driscoll’s allegations that California Berry Cultivars infringed Driscoll’s patents on four of its strawberry varieties and supposedly interfered with Driscoll’s contracts with nurseries and breeders in connection with California Berry Cultivars’ breeding program. In April, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District granted summary judgment in favor of California Berry Cultivars.

Driscoll’s announced in May that it has filed a protective appeal to challenge the ruling.

In a recent news release, California Berry Cultivars said that Driscoll’s “mischaracterizes the circumstances of the litigation and demonstrates a profound disrespect for the District Court and our judicial system.”

This follows an April announcement from California Berry Cultivars about the court’s ruling that favored the company and resulted in a dismissal of Driscoll’s interference claims.

“After five years of litigation and extensive discovery, including significant document production and multiple witness depositions, the federal District Court found Driscoll’s claims to be so lacking in legal or factual support that they did not merit a trial, and so the Court granted CBC judgment as a matter of law,” California Berry Cultivars said in a news release.

Driscoll’s said the appeal reaffirms its commitment to defending its intellectual property.

“CBC has consistently operated with integrity in its breeding programs and has successfully developed and commercialized numerous strawberry varieties in compliance with settled law,” California Berry Cultivars said in the release. “CBC remains focused on innovation.”

California governor proposes fast-tracking water infrastructure projects

Mon, 19 May 2025 12:35:54 GMT

California Gov. Gavin Newsom unveiled a proposed addition to his state budget May 14 that would “fast-track” water infrastructure improvements. The presented changes would, among other things, change the way property acquisitions — including eminent domain — are dealt with relative to water infrastructure projects under the State Water Project . It would also change how protests to water rights permitting decisions are managed.

“For too long, attempts to modernize our critical water infrastructure have stalled in endless red tape, burdened with unnecessary delay,” Newsom said in a news release. “We’re done with barriers — our state needs to complete this project as soon as possible, so that we can better store and manage water to prepare for a hotter, drier future.”

The proposal includes several changes to existing law.

For example, it notes the state currently must appraise a property it seeks to acquire before negotiations start. The government must also provide a summary of how that appraisal was reached to the property owner. The proposal would exempt efforts by the State Water Resources Development Board to acquire property relative to the needs of water supply facilities from these requirements.

The proposal also notes that, under existing law, protests to water rights permitting decisions must meet certain requirements, including deadlines. While existing law “authorizes the board to cancel a protest, permit or petition” for failure to meet the specified requirements, the new proposal would require the cancellation.

“The proposals will allow the Department of Water Resources to move quickly through the permitting and land acquisition processes for the Delta Conveyance Project to allow the state’s most important water supply and climate adaptation project to move forward, saving years, and billions of dollars by avoiding further delay,” Ryan Endean, deputy director of communications for the California Department of Water Resources, told The Packer.

“The State Water Project delivers water to 750,000 acres of farmland,” he added. “Fast-tracking the Delta Conveyance Project will allow the system to more reliably deliver water to those agricultural regions — providing growers with a higher degree of water supply security — as we see more extreme swings between wet periods and drought.”

Endean said Newsom’s proposed budget will go to the California Legislature, which is required to pass the main budget by June 15. The same deadline is not required of trailer bills such as the new proposal.

“If approved by the Legislature and signed by the governor, the proposals would take effect later this summer,” said Endean, who added, “The target date for the start of [the Delta Conveyance Project’s] construction is 2029 and these proposals keep that target on track.”

Driscoll’s filed appeal in strawberry patent case

Fri, 16 May 2025 17:23:08 GMT

Watsonville, Calif.-based berry grower Driscoll’s said it has filed a protective appeal that challenges a recent summary judgment ruling by the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District in favor of California Berry Cultivars (CBC).

In a news release in April , California Berry Cultivars said that from the outset, the court’s rulings favored the company, resulting in the dismissal of Driscoll’s interference claims. CBC said in the release that with only Driscoll’s patent claims surviving, the court has granted CBC’s motion for summary judgment, eliminating all of Driscoll’s claims against CBC.

Driscoll’s said this appeal reaffirms its commitment to defending its intellectual property.

“We disagree with the judge’s dismissal of the case for lack of evidence,” Soren Bjorn, Driscoll’s CEO, said in a release. “CBC’s own breeding records, which were admitted before the court, clearly show CBC used Driscoll’s patented varieties without authorization. We believe in a fair and competitive marketplace, which includes respecting intellectual property rights, and we will pursue those who misappropriate our plants to breed their own varieties.”

Bjorn said that because Driscoll’s does not sell its plants, there was no legitimate way for CBC to obtain the patented varieties it used in its breeding program.

Driscoll’s cites a similar case in 2017, in which a federal jury found CBC liable for patent infringement.

“CBC took what wasn’t theirs, and that kind of misconduct threatens not only Driscoll’s investments in innovation, but the entire system that protects creativity and advancement in agriculture,” Bjorn said. “Through this appeal, we aim to uphold the integrity of United States patent rights and reinforce that intellectual property protections matter.”

Modern Ag Alliance celebrates signing of GA pesticide liability bill

Mon, 12 May 2025 21:36:33 GMT

Georgia Gov. Brian Kemp recently signed Senate Bill 144 into law , which changes the way liability is treated on pesticide use in the state. This move was celebrated by the Modern Ag Alliance, which called it a pivotal victory for Georgia farmers. The group pointed out the bill had bipartisan support in the Georgia Senate (42-12) and House (101-58) and made Georgia the second state after North Dakota to have similar legislation dealing with pesticide liability.

“This is a momentous win for Georgia’s farmers and the agricultural economy,” Elizabeth Burns-Thompson, executive director of the Modern Ag Alliance, said in a news release.

“Thanks to Governor Kemp and the Georgia Legislature, farmers now have greater clarity that the tools they need to maintain our food supply will remain available, and agriculture can continue to thrive as Georgia’s leading industry. This new law adds to the growing momentum for other states to adopt similar legislation and reassert a fundamental principle: science-based crop protection labels are the law.”

Modern Ag Alliance said the signing of the bill into law was made possible by the strong support of Georgia’s agricultural community. According to the group’s Ag Insights Survey, 72% of Georgians, including 94% of farmers, favor science-based policies for crop protection tools.

“This is a major victory for Georgia’s top industry: agriculture,” said Will Bentley, president of the Georgia Agribusiness Council. “By reinforcing science-based regulations for crop protection products, this law provides Georgia’s farmers and agribusiness with the certainty they need to remain competitive and contribute to a strong food and fiber supply chain. We appreciate Governor Kemp and the Georgia Legislature for prioritizing policies that benefit Georgia farmers, agribusinesses and consumers alike.”

Georgia Farm Bureau President Tom McCall added, “Georgia farmers now have greater confidence that crop protection regulations will remain consistent and rooted in sound science. This law safeguards growers’ access to essential inputs for food production and helps sustain Georgia’s agricultural economy. We appreciate the Georgia General Assembly’s leadership and Governor Kemp’s commitment to supporting our state’s farmers.”

Agricultural leaders also highlighted the consumer benefits of the legislation.

“This law allows farmers to sustain their operations with low input costs, keeping fresh, locally grown produce available without further food price increases,” said Chris Butts, executive director of the Georgia Fruit and Vegetable Growers Association. “Georgia growers work hard to meet demand despite unpredictable challenges, and we applaud Governor Kemp and the Georgia Legislature for supporting policies that allow growers to continue delivering high-quality food to consumers.”

Trump Suggests Farmers Could Petition to Keep Workers Without Legal Status

Fri, 11 Apr 2025 14:29:25 GMT

U.S. President Donald Trump suggested on Thursday that farmers will be able to petition the federal government to retain some farmworkers in the U.S. illegally, provided the workers leave the country and return with legal status.

Trump’s comments during his Cabinet meeting are, though vague, the most detail the administration has provided on the fate of the nation’s farmworkers without legal status — who make up half the farm sector’s workforce — under his plan for mass deportations.

Farm industry groups have warned that deporting large numbers of agricultural workers would grind the food system to a halt. In addition to farming, many workers without legal status are also employed in the meat and dairy industries.

“We’re going to work with farmers that, if they have strong recommendations for their farms, for certain people, that we’re going to let them stay in for a while and work with the farmers and then come back and go through a process, a legal process. We have to take care of our farmers and hotels and various places where they need the people,” Trump said.

“A farmer will come in with a letter concerning certain people saying, they’re great, they’re working hard, we’re going to slow it down a little bit for them and then we’re going to ultimately bring them back. They’ll go out, they’re going to come back as legal workers,” he said.

The White House and the Department of Agriculture did not respond to requests to clarify the policy or when it will be implemented.

During his first administration, Trump promised the farm sector that deportations would not affect agricultural workers, but has made no such promise in this term.

Immigrant farmworkers prepared for the Trump administration by assigning guardians to their children in the case of their detention and taking other precautions.

(Reporting by Jeff Mason and Leah Douglas in Washington; Editing by Bill Berkrot)

California Berry Cultivars wins summary judgment in Driscoll’s lawsuit

Tue, 08 Apr 2025 20:40:36 GMT

California Berry Cultivars LLC, an independent plant breeding company focused on strawberry genetics, says the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California granted its motion for summary judgment in the lawsuit filed by Driscoll’s Inc., resolving all of Driscoll’s claims in CBC’s favor.

“This ruling is a strong affirmation of the integrity of our breeding program and our commitment to independent innovation in the strawberry industry,” A.G. Kawamura, president of CBC and former California agriculture secretary, said in a news release. “We are proud to continue offering high-performing, flavorful strawberry varieties to growers and consumers alike.”

Driscoll’s initiated the litigation in 2019, alleging CBC infringed Driscoll’s patents on four of its strawberry varieties and supposedly interfered with Driscoll’s contracts with nurseries and breeders in connection with CBC’s breeding program, the release said. CBC said that, from the outset, the court’s rulings favored the company, resulting in the dismissal of Driscoll’s interference claims. Now, with only Driscoll’s patent claims surviving, the court has granted CBC’s motion for summary judgment, eliminating all of Driscoll’s claims against CBC, the release said.

CBC says the legal victory against the claims substantiates its position that it acted lawfully and ethically in its breeding efforts.

Kroger brings counterclaims against Albertsons

Tue, 25 Mar 2025 17:16:11 GMT

Kroger says it has filed its answers and counterclaims to a lawsuit filed in December by Albertsons, which claims a breach of the companies’ proposed merger agreement after a U.S. court blocked the $25 billion deal .

In a news release, Kroger alleges that while it worked to seek regulatory approval and close the merger, Albertsons was engaged in a “secret and misguided campaign, together with C&S Wholesale Grocers, the divestiture buyer, to pursue its own regulatory strategy,” which undermined its efforts.

“Albertsons’s misconduct shockingly came to light in the middle of the antitrust trials under government cross-examination of Susan Morris, Albertsons’s recently promoted CEO designate,” Kroger said in the release. “As a result of its misconduct, Albertsons is not entitled to the $600 million termination fee under the terms of the parties’ merger agreement, nor is Albertsons entitled to the other damages it seeks.”

Kroger claims that Albertsons executives secretly worked with C&S Wholesale Grocers to undermine its regulatory strategy, including Morris having “secret communications with C&S’s CEO and others, utilizing personal emails and cell phones” to advance the strategy.

“This strategy resulted in C&S criticizing the divestiture package that C&S had voluntarily agreed to, which in turn caused regulators to believe that C&S was an inadequate divestiture buyer,” Kroger’s response said. “The Washington court cited these very communications when it ultimately blocked the merger.”

Kroger also alleges that Albertsons developed a “Plan B” to sue the retailer in the event of a failed merger, “by manufacturing a paper trail over many months including unfounded allegations by Albertsons that are directly contrary to the under-oath testimony” of Albertsons executives.

“Kroger was prepared, in the event of adverse court decisions, to pursue all remaining options to close the merger,” the retailer said in its statement. “But, within hours of the court decisions blocking the merger, Albertsons terminated the merger agreement and filed a 140-page complaint against Kroger. These actions ensured that the merger would never close, and further demonstrated that Albertsons had long before shifted its focus towards the litigation that is now pending between the parties, abandoning its contractual obligation to use best efforts to close the transaction.”

Kroger seeks damages from Albertsons as a result of its alleged misconduct and material breaches of the merger agreement. Kroger said it will seek to recover its investment made to obtain regulatoriy approval of the merger.

Earlier this month, C&S Wholesalers sued Kroger for allegedly failing to pay a $125 million termination fee.

Federal court reinstates Staccato cherry plant patent

Tue, 25 Mar 2025 14:25:36 GMT

The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Washington on March 12 reversed a previous order invalidating a plant patent related to Staccato cherries, says Summerland Varieties Corp., which manages the intellectual property rights of fruit breeders.

Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, a department of the Canadian government, owns the intellectual property rights to Staccato cherry.

The court had ruled that the Glory cherry is actually the Staccato cherry, and as a result, AAFC is now free to pursue its claim that the propagation, distribution and sale of Glory trees or cherries infringes the Staccato patent, according to a news release.

AAFC has had long-running legal action with three U.S.-based defendants: Gordon Goodwin, a Washington State orchardist who claimed to have discovered the Glory tree and patented it as his own; Van Well Nursery Inc., a U.S. nursery that transferred a Staccato cherry tree to Goodwin and then grew and sold Glory trees; and Monson Fruit Co., a U.S. grower, packer, and seller of Glory cherries, the release said.

Summerland Varieties said the court said that it committed a “clear error in granting summary judgment” on the issue of Staccato patent invalidity. In support of their motion for summary judgment, the defendants had submitted an Excel spreadsheet purporting to demonstrate sales of Staccato cherries before AAFC filed its Staccato patent application, but the defendants excluded 10 rows of data which, together with other evidence, demonstrated that the sales were of Sonata cherries and not Staccato cherries, the release said.

“We are very pleased to manage the license for a valid patent that can now be properly enforced,” said Sean Beirnes, general manager for Summerland Varieties. “The global tree fruit industry is built on trust. It is critically important that industry stakeholders respect intellectual property rights associated with protected varieties. SVC will have zero tolerance for those who cheat.”

Summerland Varieties said Stemilt Growers is the sole authorized U.S. packer and marketer of Staccato cherries.

9 businesses banned by USDA for PACA violations

Thu, 14 Dec 2023 20:55:55 GMT

The USDA said it imposed sanctions on nine produce businesses for failure to meet contract obligations of produce sellers and for failure to pay reparations under the Perishable Agricultural Commodities Act.

The USDA said it suspended the businesses’ PACA licenses and bars the principal operator from working for or in a PACA-licensed business without USDA approval.

These businesses include, according to a news release:

AAA American Select Produce, operating out of Miami, for failing to pay $9,975 to a Texas seller. The USDA listed Irka Diaz and Osmani O. Mursuli as members and managers of the business.
Always Fresco, operating out of McAllen, Texas, for failing to pay $40,885 to a Minnesota seller. The USDA listed Guadalupe Quintanilla Jr. and Edgar Rios as managers of the business.
West Pacific Orchard, operating out of San Antonio, for failing to pay $59,800 to a California seller. The USDA listed Jose Luis Ruiz as the manager of the business.
Real Value Sales, operating out of Nogales, Ariz., for failing to pay $13,098 to an Arizona seller. The USDA listed Eddie Valencia and Irene Valencia as the officers, directors and major shareholders of the business.
Planters Produce, operating out of Port St. Lucie, Fla., for failing to pay an $89,120 to a Texas seller. The USDA listed Herman Oneal as the sole officer, director and stockholder of the business.
Fresh Produce Market, operating out of Brooklyn, N.Y., for failing to pay a $19,378 to a New York seller. The USDA listed Solomon Bondo as the sole officer, director and stockholder of the business.
Fernando Acevedo Jr., doing business as La Familia Produce and operating out of Nogales, Ariz., for failing to pay $310,518 to a Texas seller. The USDA listed Acevedo as the sole proprietor of the business.
Arturo Hernandez doing business as The Avo King and operating out of Camarillo, Calif., for failing to pay $41,525 to a Texas seller. The USDA listed Hernandez as the sole proprietor of the business.
Susan Gilbert doing business as Flagler Palm Coast Farmers Market and operating out of Ormond Beach, Fla., for failing to pay a $43,501 to a Florida seller. The USDA listed Gilbert as the sole proprietor of the business.

Kroger files injunction against FTC

Tue, 20 Aug 2024 17:23:27 GMT

The Kroger Co. says it has filed a motion for a preliminary injunction against the Federal Trade Commission’s challenge of its proposed merger with Albertsons Cos. Inc. in the U.S. District Court of the Southern District of Ohio.

In February, the FTC filed a suit to prevent the proposed merger — a $24.6 billion deal — saying that the merger is anticompetitive.

Kroger said in a news release that the FTC’s move violates its constitutional protections by proceeding with the administrative tribunal as well as a separate action in federal court.

The Cincinnati-based company alleges the FTC is violating Article II of the Constitution because the administrative law judge presiding over the administrative proceeding is not removable by the president. This principle was recognized and applied by the Supreme Court in Free Enterprise Fund v. Public Company Accounting Oversight Board, the release said.

Kroger also alleges the FTC violates Article III of the Constitution by seeking to adjudicate the copmany’s private rights to contract with another private party administratively through the executive branch rather than in the independent judicial branch. This standard was reinforced this past term by the Supreme Court in SEC v. Jarkesy, the release said.

Kroger also said the FTC seeking to split its challenge to the merger into two separate tribunals is an inappropriate attempt to receive multiple opportunities to litigate the same issues. The company said the FTC has also filed a motion in the federal court proceedings seeking to block the merger for the duration of its administrative proceeding, which will likely take several years to resolve.

Kroger said the evidentiary hearings for the federal court proceeding are set to begin on Aug. 26 in the District of Oregon.

“The merger between Kroger and Albertson’s is squarely focused on ensuring we bring customers lower prices starting day one while securing the future of good-paying union jobs,” Kroger Chairman and CEO Rodney McMullen said in the release. “We stand prepared to defend this merger in the upcoming trial in federal court — the appropriate venue for this matter to be heard — and we are asking the Court to halt what amounts to an unlawful proceeding before the FTC’s own in-house tribunal.”

Kroger calls Albertsons’ claims in lawsuit ‘baseless’

Wed, 11 Dec 2024 16:25:54 GMT

The Kroger Co. has released a statement disputing a lawsuit filed by Albertsons Cos. Inc. that alleges Kroger willfully breached its contract and the covenant of good faith and fair dealing regarding a merger agreement. This comes after a U.S. district court blocked the proposed deal between the companies.

Kroger, which says the claims made by Albertsons in the lawsuit are without merit, further said in the statement:

“Kroger refutes these allegations in the strongest possible terms, especially in light of Albertsons’ repeated intentional material breaches and interference throughout the merger process, which we will prove in court.

“This is clearly an attempt to deflect responsibility following Kroger’s written notification of Albertsons’ multiple breaches of the agreement, and to seek payment of the merger’s break fee, to which they are not entitled.

“Kroger looks forward to responding to these baseless claims in court. We went to extraordinary lengths to uphold the merger agreement throughout the entirety of the regulatory process and the facts will make that abundantly clear.

“We are incredibly proud of the Kroger team for how they worked through the merger process with the highest degree of integrity and commitment.

“We are confident in Kroger’s value creation model to drive sustainable growth. Kroger’s Board of Directors is currently evaluating next steps that serve the best interests of Kroger’s customers and associates and create value for shareholders.”

Your next read:

Albertsons sues Kroger for breach of merger agreement

Wed, 11 Dec 2024 14:25:46 GMT

Albertsons Cos. Inc. has filed a lawsuit against The Kroger Co., bringing claims for willful breach of contract and breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing.

The legal action, filed in the Delaware Court of Chancery, follows a U.S. district court ruling Dec. 11 blocking a proposed merger deal between the two companies .

In a Wednesday news release announcing the lawsuit and its decision to terminate the agreement, Albertsons said the claims stem from Kroger’s “failure to exercise ‘best efforts’ and to take ‘any and all actions’ to secure regulatory approval of the companies’ agreed merger transaction, as was required of Kroger under the terms of the merger agreement between the parties.”

The Boise, Idaho-based company accuses Kroger of willfully breached the agreement by repeatedly refusing to divest assets necessary for antitrust approval, ignoring regulators’ feedback, rejecting stronger divestiture buyers and failing to cooperate with Albertsons, according to the release.

Kroger has denied the allegations, calling the claims “baseless and without merit” in a statement responding to the lawsuit .

“This is clearly an attempt to deflect responsibility following Kroger’s written notification of Albertsons’ multiple breaches of the agreement, and to seek payment of the merger’s break fee, to which they are not entitled,” Kroger said in the statement.

“A successful merger between Albertsons and Kroger would have delivered meaningful benefits for America’s consumers, Kroger’s and Albertsons’ associates and communities across the country,” said Tom Moriarty, Albertsons’ general counsel and chief policy officer. “Rather than fulfill its contractual obligations to ensure that the merger succeeded, Kroger acted in its own financial self-interest, repeatedly providing insufficient divestiture proposals that ignored regulators’ concerns.”

Moriarty said Kroger’s conduct has harmed Albertsons’ shareholders, associates and consumers, adding that “the opportunity to realize the significant benefits of the merger has been lost on account of Kroger’s willfully deficient approach to securing regulatory clearance.”

“We are taking this action to enforce and preserve Albertsons’ rights and to protect the interests of our shareholders, associates and consumers,” Moriarty said.

Albertsons said recent rulings from the U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon and the King County Superior Court in Washington state, which granted regulators’ requests to block the merger, could have been avoided but for Kroger’s alleged breaching conduct.

Pursuant to the Delaware Court of Chancery rules, Albertsons’ complaint against Kroger is temporarily under seal, according to the release.

Albertsons said it is seeking billions of dollars in damages from Kroger, claiming that its shareholders have been denied a multibillion-dollar premium that Kroger agreed to pay for Albertsons’ shares and have been subjected to a decrease in shareholder value on account of Albertsons’ inability to pursue other business opportunities as it sought approval for the transaction.

The company is also seeking to recover for the time, energy and resources it invested in pursuing a successful merger, the release said.

Albertsons said it has notified Kroger of its decision to terminate the merger agreement “in light of the Oregon and Washington courts’ rulings enjoining the company’s proposed merger with Kroger and Kroger’s failure to close the merger before the contractual deadline to do so.” The company said the move entitles Albertsons to an immediate $600 million termination fee and removes contractual constraints on its ability to pursue other strategic opportunities.

In addition to the termination fee, Albertsons said it is entitled to relief “reflecting the multiple years and hundreds of millions of dollars it devoted to obtaining approval for the merger, along with the extended period of unnecessary limbo Albertsons endured as a result of Kroger’s actions.” The company said it further seeks to recover certain expenses and costs.

Your next read:

U.S. court blocks Kroger's $25B acquisition of Albertsons

Tue, 10 Dec 2024 22:23:06 GMT

By Jody Godoy

A U.S. judge blocked the pending $25 billion merger of U.S. grocery chains Kroger and Albertsons on Tuesday, a win for the Federal Trade Commission that Kroger has said would likely scuttle the deal.

The FTC argued at a three-week trial in Portland, Ore., that the merger would eliminate head-to-head competition between the top two traditional grocery chains, leading to higher prices for shoppers and reduced bargaining leverage for unionized workers.

The ruling, which could be appealed, is a big victory for FTC Chair Lina Khan and the Biden administration in their bid to counter inflation at the checkout. Americans’ discontent over a lingering rise in grocery prices since the pandemic was a key theme in the run-up to President-elect Donald Trump’s win in November.

U.S. District Judge Adrienne Nelson agreed in the ruling that the merger was likely to remove direct competition between the two grocers, which would make it unlawful.

Nelson said the FTC did not present enough evidence of its theory that the deal would decrease competition for unionized grocery labor.

A Washington state court judge in Seattle separately ruled to block the merger on Tuesday in a case brought by Attorney General Bob Ferguson.

Albertsons shares were down around 2.2% on Tuesday afternoon. Kroger shares were up around 5%.

FTC spokesperson Douglas Farrar said the ruling “protects competition in the grocery market, which will prevent prices from rising even more.”

“This statement win makes it clear that strong, reality-based antitrust enforcement delivers real results for consumers, workers, and small businesses,” Farrar said.

Spokespeople for Kroger and Albertsons did not immediately return requests for comment.

Kroger fought the FTC’s claims, saying the deal would bring prices down, particularly at Albertsons stores, where it said prices are 10-12% higher than at Kroger stores. The merged company would fund price cuts through cost savings it expects from a larger operation, and a larger customer base to drive revenue for Kroger’s data consulting business, Kroger said.

Nelson rejected those arguments, saying the efficiencies were not verifiable or specific to the deal. Kroger’s promises to invest in lower prices and better benefits for employees would not be enforceable, she wrote.

“Despite defendants’ best intentions to follow through on their promises at this moment, the business realities on the ground after the merger may change what defendants are able to invest or what is in their best interest to invest,” she said.

Had the deal proceeded, Kroger would own approximately 5,000 stores across the U.S. The companies argued at trial that they needed to merge to compete with global conglomerates such as Walmart and Amazon.com.

Kroger and Albertsons had also tried to convince Nelson that selling 579 of the stores, particularly in western U.S. states where Kroger and Albertsons are located near each other, would preserve competition.

Grocery workers’ unions criticized the merger, saying it would likely lead to job losses, and attorneys general from 10 states and the District of Columbia either joined the FTC’s case or sued to block the merger on their own.

Kim Cordova, president of the UFCW Local 7 union, which represents hundreds of workers at stores owned by Kroger and Albertsons in Colorado and Wyoming, welcomed the ruling.

But Cordova expressed concern about what could happen in the case once Trump appoints a new FTC chair, if Kroger appeals.

(Reporting by Jody Godoy and Siddharth Cavale in New York and Jasper Ward in Washington; editing by Matthew Lewis and Rod Nickel)

Your next read: Albertsons sues Kroger for breach of merger agreement

Why variety management requires global vigilance

Mon, 06 Jan 2025 13:42:23 GMT

Counterfeit fruits and vegetables are nothing new in the fresh produce industry.

In 2018, Chinese courts prosecuted 13 defendants for selling nearly 1.1 million pieces of fruit under the brand names Dole, Zespri and Sunkist in the country. In 2023, International Fruit Genetics won a case in China against a producer who illegally propagated, grew and sold table grapes under the Sweet Sapphire trademark.

Consumers sued two companies for misrepresenting the contents of canned tomatoes, indicating the cans contained the San Marzano variety. These companies used roma tomatoes and other varieties but sold the cans at a higher price.

In recent months, the fresh produce industry has been involved in several international intellectual property, or IP, cases where courts ruled that growers planted illegal proprietary varieties.

Variety management companies say this is, unfortunately, just a normal part of new variety management and releases and that enforcing each variety’s IP rights ensures the best quality produce for consumers.

“It first and foremost builds confidence with the customer that when they buy this brand, the experience with that piece of fruit will be consistent, the tastes will be consistent and they can count on that,” said Christopher Palumbo, director of Goldenberry Farms.

In March, an Italian judge ruled in favor of Sun World International in four separate cases against unlicensed table grape growers. In April, Sun World stopped unauthorized individuals from misrepresenting vines from the company’s Autumncrisp-branded grapes on TikTok.

Also in April, Miami-based Goldenberry Farms filed a suit in a federal court in the U.S. for damages and trademark infringement for its Sugar Mango miniature mangoes.

In July, Bloom Fresh actioned a Peruvian grape grower to remove about 271 acres of illegally planted proprietary table grape varieties and pay a substantial fee.

In November, courts ordered an Italian grower to remove illegal plantings of Bloom Fresh varieties. The grower faces a civil case on damages related to the plantings.

Importance of maintaining IP

Alanna Rennie, chief legal officer for global fruit breeder Bloom Fresh International, said the breeding industry established plant variety rights, or PVRs, in the 1950s or 1960s as plant breeding began to take off. The objective of the PVR system is to incentivize investment into innovation to bring improved and higher-performing varieties to farmers, retailers and consumers.

“This is something that we really embrace in our business and through means beyond PVR and trademark,” she said.

Finding infringements and enforcing PVRs is a priority for variety management companies, said Michael Stimson, vice president of intellectual property and general counsel for Sun World.

Stimson said Sun World files for plant patents and PVRs with each new commercialized variety. He said these help to establish that the new variety is distinct, uniform and stable.

Sun World files a PVR in each country where the varieties are available. Ot brands each variety with registered trademarks in the countries where the variety is grown as well as those where it is imported.

“There isn’t much point in having a PVR if you don’t enforce it when you learn of an infringement,” he said. “Our company policy is to support our customers and licensed producers and to pursue every infringer we find and, ideally, to seek either a court order or a settlement agreement that requires the removal of the infringing plantings.”

Stimson said enforcement comes with both costs and the need for resources. Sun World hires contractors to visit wholesale and retail markets in countries to look for suspicious fruit. These contractors will send suspicious fruit to labs for a DNA analysis to see if it infringes on one of Sun World’s PVRs.

“Even when we find infringement, it is a challenge to find the infringers,” he said. “We can sometimes identify the distributor through the retailer and the producer from the distributor. We also follow up on tips we receive from our licensees and have started using drones operated by licensed investigators to assist in identifying infringers.”

Rennie said Bloom Fresh and many other breeders double down on IP enforcement efforts. Advancements in technology, industry collaboration on investigation and surveillance and courts with greater awareness and experience in handling plant breeder’s rights cases assist in these efforts by breeders.

Bloom Fresh, Sun World and Grapa Varieties formed the Breeders’ Alliance several years ago, in which these table grape breeders pool resources and coordinate surveillance activities in key markets worldwide to efficiently identify infringing material. Rennie said these efforts have enabled members to save costs on investigation and expand surveillance coverage.

Rennie said Bloom Fresh also often learns of infringement activity from licensed growers.

“They comply with the license agreements, they pay the royalties, so they’re at a competitive disadvantage if there’s an illegal grower,” she said. “Enforcement is important to protect the people that are doing the right thing as well, and to ensure that the quality of the produce marketed under our brands is maintained. Retailers and marketers are paying greater attention to infringements in their supply chains, which is also assisting with stamping out infringement.”

Why this happens

Rennie said several factors contribute to these IP infringement cases. Sometimes, it’s a lack of awareness on a grower’s part that a variety is protected.

“That’s a task for us in the international breeding communities to educate growers about IP protection,” she said.

Palumbo said that sometimes, too, someone will accidentally call fruit by a trademarked name.

“They have heard the name so much, they assumed it was common, and maybe they misname their product,” he said.

And others choose to ignore IP protections, which is much more dangerous. Rennie noted that in these cases, growers try to avoid paying royalties. She said this is a disadvantage to the growers who pay royalties and to the fresh fruit industry, as it stifles innovation and hampers breeders from bringing better, higher-performing varieties to the market.

“You can have these IP rights, but unless you’re actively enforcing them, you lack that stick and people will continue to infringe,” Rennie said. “That’s why we actively pursue all infringement and make noise around these cases to send a message to the industry that we are actively protecting our rights and the consequences for violating these rights can be very significant.”

Legal reality behind enforcement

Sometimes courts have to get involved once a situation is identified, said Stimson, who added that an international treaty — which countries can interpret differently — governs PVR law.

“Litigation is expensive and time-consuming,” he said. “We must hire attorneys in each country to prosecute these cases, which often involve several levels of appeal and can often take as long as a decade to resolve.”

Rennie points to the involvement of technology in rapid DNA analysis and that courts worldwide are becoming increasingly familiar with handling plant breeder rights and administering these cases. She said these positive developments reflect the growing number of successful enforcement cases.

Palumbo said Goldenberry’s Sugar Mangoes follow a similar route, being trademarked in the countries where they are grown and sold. The trouble with importers selling illegal products under a trademarked name is if the IP owner — in this case, Goldenberry Farms — discovers a product illegally being sold, the owner sends a cease-and-desist letter. The grocer must pull the product, as a grocer selling a mislabeled product also infringes on the trademark right.

“No grocer and no reputable merchant want to be involved with that,” he said.

Palumbo said it’s easy for Goldenberry Farms to monitor products coming into the U.S. to ensure they are from licensees.

“We understand the distribution channels because we have partners like Baldor, Melissa’s and Robinson Fresh, who are licensees and partners. We know what they’re selling.”

Sometimes, though, partners approach Goldenberry Farms because a competing grocery store sells Sugar Mangoes, and Goldenberry works with one grocery store in an area to build demand. It’s usually then that Goldenberry discovers if the competing grocer has unlicensed produce and has to intervene.

An example of this, Palumbo said, was a vendor in Canada that called Goldenberry Farms to complain about the quality of the mangoes. However, the mangoes were from an illegal exporter. Palumbo said this is a significant danger for managed varieties, as the produce may not meet the variety standards.

“[The customer] may be eating a lesser-quality piece of fruit,” he said. “The primary concern is the quality and taste of the product with the consumer, and that is the reason for the infringement. It’s because it’s everything else is secondary to the consumer experience with that thing that you told them it would be.”

More than a name or a right

Palumbo said IP goes beyond the name, growing rights and variety management. Variety management companies and fruit breeders invest significantly in launching a new variety.

“You have to create value for the supermarket,” he said.

This includes merchandising, consumer-facing websites, recipes, POS displays, social media, local advertising and more.

“When [a retailer] buys a Sweet Sugar Mango, there’s a whole merchandising guide that the supermarkets have access to,” he said. “We know that the supermarket has tens of thousands of products, so they’re not going to have time to market every single product individually. That’s our job. When someone does business with us with our brands, we generally try to amplify them in the local market where they are.”

All of this, he said, builds trust for the consumer and helps drive demand.

Tanvi Shah, intellectual property manager at Bloom Fresh, said IP protections also help fuel Bloom Fresh’s breeding programs. The company says it breeds for superior taste and quality, disease resistance, adaptability, drought tolerance and higher yields to help growers maximize their returns.

“It takes a long time and a lot of money to develop and bring to market new varieties,” she said. “So, it’s important that we have a strong IP framework so that we can utilize [the royalties on the varieties] to then generate a return on investment, and that return on investment then goes back into our breeding program so that we can continue to develop improved varieties.”

Shah added that Bloom Fresh also uses its IP to help licensed growers maximize the planted proprietary varieties.

“We have test plots where we work out the best conditions for growing our varieties,” she said. “When we’re supporting our licensed growers, that includes sharing our technical expertise to help them to achieve better quality. We’re able to do that because of the royalties and because of the IP protection that exists.”

Future of IP

Stimson said fruit breeders continue to innovate with new varieties, and growers are very eager to plant these new varieties and comply with the IP regulations because of the benefits of these new proprietary varieties, including distribution networks and marketing.

“Strong IP protection is necessary for breeders to produce new varieties, enabling exporters, distributors and retailers to bring innovation to consumers,” he said. “The availability of IP protection provides breeders with the resources to continue developing these superior varieties.”

Palumbo said he sees no signs of branded varieties slowing down.

“That’s definitely the trend,” he said. “Data and consumer trends show it. There’s all kinds of new hybrids coming out. A lot of the companies believe the best way to merchandise is with a unique trademark name.”

Shah said IP is critical for the future of variety development in a changing world.

“Continuing innovation is particularly important in the fresh produce industry, which is beset by environmental challenges; it is vital that breeders innovate to develop more resilient varieties that can be grown more sustainably, and IP protection provides the incentive and funding stream to enable that,” she said.

Palumbo said that the most significant driver to managed and proprietary varieties is to keep delivering high-quality, consistent fruit. The companies investing in trademarking fruit varieties understand quality, shelf life and consistency, which help create return customers.

“Those are the three things that are the key ingredients to make sure that if you do this flush of marketing and you attract the customer, they will come back again and again,” he said. “Because you can have the best marketing in the world, and you can attract many first-time customers, but if you don’t have a great piece of fruit to match the experience, you’ve really just not created a very long-term business for that item.”