In January 2021, Barbara Piper emerged as a significant figure in the agricultural community when she filed a class-action lawsuit against several major agricultural companies. The lawsuit, initiated on behalf of her late husband Michael Piper’s estate, claims that these companies engaged in antitrust practices that unfairly inflated crop input prices, causing substantial harm to farmers. Michael Piper, a lifelong farmer from Mount Vernon, Illinois, passed away in 2017. Known for his love of tractor pulling, he was deeply embedded in the farming community.
Farmers Business Network (FBN), an agricultural technology company founded in 2014, aims to disrupt traditional agricultural input markets by providing data-driven insights and a platform for purchasing crop inputs. By collecting and analyzing data from millions of acres of farmland, FBN enables farmers to make more informed decisions about their operations. The company’s platform promotes price transparency and seeks to reduce farming costs by connecting farmers directly with suppliers, bypassing the traditional networks of authorized retailers. Grounded in the belief that leveraging technology and data can help farmers access better prices and increase their profitability, FBN has positioned itself as a direct competitor to traditional agricultural input suppliers.
Barbara Piper’s lawsuit accuses 14 major agricultural companies, including Syngenta, Corteva, and Bayer, of colluding to boycott online platforms like FBN. The complaint alleges that these companies conspired to maintain artificially high prices by restricting access to crop inputs and blocking price transparency. As a result, farmers have allegedly been forced to pay far more for inputs than they would in a competitive market.
Key points in the lawsuit include allegations of collusion, where the defendants are accused of engaging in a group boycott against electronic sales platforms like FBN, thereby keeping prices inflated due to reduced competition. Barbara Piper argues that farmers, like her late husband, have suffered significant financial losses due to these practices, which have driven up the costs of essential inputs like seeds and herbicides. The lawsuit highlights significant price disparities for the same products. For instance, the price for Bayer’s herbicide Roundup PowerMAX allegedly varied by as much as 270% across different sellers, even though farmers were purchasing the same product. The companies named in the lawsuit have generally denied the allegations, asserting that they believe the lawsuit lacks merit and that they will vigorously defend their actions.
The lawsuit sheds light on systemic issues in the agricultural input market, where large corporations are seen as holding an advantage over farmers, potentially inflating costs and reducing profitability. Advocates for platforms like FBN argue that increased price transparency could empower farmers by helping them make more informed purchasing decisions. However, there are concerns about FBN’s business model, particularly its use of farmers’ data, which could have potential conflicts of interest due to its dual role as a data aggregator and input seller. Traditional suppliers also worry that FBN’s disruptive approach could strain long-established relationships with farmers, potentially leading to unintended consequences for the agricultural community. The shift to online purchasing may lead to reduced personalized support and potentially causing job losses in rural areas dependent on agricultural supply businesses. Moreover, there is a concern that FBN’s disruptive model could lead to the exit of smaller, traditional suppliers, ultimately leading to increased market concentration, where a few large companies dominate the market. This could negate the competitive advantages that FBN aims to provide and lead to higher prices in the long run.
The outcome of this lawsuit could have far-reaching implications for the agricultural sector. As of August 2024, the Piper case has been consolidated into multidistrict litigation (MDL) to streamline related claims against major agricultural companies. In a separate but connected action, the Federal Trade Commission and 10 state attorneys general filed a lawsuit accusing Syngenta and Corteva of alleged exclusion of generic competitors through loyalty rebate programs to stifle competition and keep pesticide prices high. Both lawsuits focus on alleged anti-competitive practices that inflate input costs for farmers. Piper’s case centers on the boycott of online platforms like Farmer’s Business Network (FBN), while the FTC’s action targets loyalty programs. Together, these cases highlight growing regulatory scrutiny and aim to promote fair competition in the agricultural market.
The story of Barbara Piper underscores the complexities of the agricultural input market and the challenges faced by farmers. The legal battle raises significant questions about competition, pricing transparency, and the future of farming in the United States. Depending on its outcome, the lawsuit could reshape the agricultural landscape, shaping the way business is done in the agricultural input market.