Target Corporation is the latest US retailer to accuse the “big three” US canned tuna suppliers of price fixing, following guilty pleas from Bumble Bee Foods, two of its executives and the former senior vice president of sales of Starkist.

The Minneapolis, Minnesota-based retail giant, which has 1,800 stores across the US, is accusing Bumble Bee; Starkist and its South Korean parent Dongwon Industries; as well as Thai Union Group and its US subsidiary Tri-Union Seafoods, which trades as Chicken of the Sea International. Target is seeking damages and legal costs.

Target’s “antitrust action arises out of a conspiracy among Defendants to fix the price of packaged seafood products, including specifically shelf-stable tuna”, it said in the complaint, filed in Minnesota District Court on June 13. On June 29, the case was transferred to the California Southern District Court, where the other civil lawsuits against the tuna giants from retailers such as Walmart -- which submitted an amended claim in May naming many big players in the tuna sector -- foodservice buyers and members of the public have been centralized.

The alleged “conspiracy began no later than May 2010 and continued through at least December 2013”, according to the Target complaint.

However, Target “expects discovery to show that the conspiracy lasted a significantly longer period of time”, the complaint reads.  

Accordingly, upon information and belief, in 2011, executives from Chicken of the Sea, Bumble Bee and StarKist began to discuss an agreement not to sell any branded “FAD-free” packaged tuna.

Target alleges the “unlawful agreement was about more than fixing and maintaining a price on shelf-stable tuna products”, also including agreeing to curtail aggressive promotional activity, to refrain from selling FAD-free products, and to take other steps, all for the purpose of generating profits through the unlawful agreement.

Among the other steps taken by the tuna giants “were agreements (a) to reduce package sizes, (b) to limit promotions and discounts on packaged tuna, (c) to enter into co-packing agreements involving the shared use of packing and canning facilities, and (d) to not accept customer orders exceeding the customer’s historical buying pattern”, it is alleged.

Read details at Undercurrent News