Dairy price-fixing class action targets milk co-ops' export program

Estimated reading time: 9 minutes.

Key facts

What was filed: On October 5, 2026, 26 consumers filed a proposed class action accusing the National Milk Producers Federation (NMPF) and 13 dairy cooperatives of conspiring to raise U.S. dairy prices.
The case: Oriakhi v. National Milk Producers Federation, No. 2:26-cv-01093, U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, Norfolk Division.
The program at issue: The complaint targets the export assistance program of Cooperatives Working Together (CWT), which NMPF now runs as the NMPF Exports and Trade program, called NEXT.
The core allegation: Plaintiffs say cooperative members pay into a shared fund that subsidizes each other's exports, which they say shrinks domestic supply and pushes up prices for milk, cheese, butter and other dairy products.
Who the proposed class covers: People and entities who bought dairy products for their own use, not directly from a defendant, from January 1, 2018 to the present.
Claims: A federal Sherman Act claim seeking a court order, plus state antitrust, state consumer protection and unjust enrichment claims seeking damages.
Status: Only the complaint has been filed. No court has ruled on the allegations or certified a class.
No claim process: There is no settlement and nothing to file. Consumers do not need to act now.

What the lawsuit says

The complaint was filed by the law firms Glasser and Glasser in Norfolk, Virginia, and Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro of Seattle. It accuses the defendants of running what it calls a "cartel" through a dairy export program.

According to the complaint, members of CWT agree to use their contributions to subsidize each other's exports of dairy products to foreign markets. The plaintiffs say this works like a government export subsidy, except that the money comes from competing cooperatives paying each other. The result, they claim, is that dairy supply is diverted away from U.S. stores, domestic prices rise above competitive levels, and consumers pay more.

The complaint says that as a result, people who bought cheese and other dairy products at retail "have paid, and continue to pay, supracompetitive prices." Supracompetitive means higher than prices would be in a market with normal competition.

These are allegations

The complaint presents the plaintiffs' side only. The defendants have not yet responded in court, and no judge has decided whether the export program broke any law.

Who the parties are

The plaintiffs. Yvette Oriakhi of New York is the first-named plaintiff. She and 25 other named plaintiffs say they bought dairy products at retail for personal use and paid inflated prices. They want to represent a nationwide class of consumers.

The National Milk Producers Federation. NMPF was founded in 1916. The complaint describes it as a farm-commodity policy organization representing a majority of U.S. dairy-marketing cooperatives. It developed and ran CWT.

The cooperatives. A dairy cooperative is a business owned by the farmers who supply it with milk. The complaint names 13 cooperatives as defendants:

Agri-Mark, Inc.
Bongards Creameries
Cooperative Milk Producers Association
Dairy Farmers of America, Inc.
Lanco Dairy Farms Coop, Inc.
Lonestar Milk Producers
Maryland and Virginia Milk Producers Cooperative, doing business as Maola Local Dairies
Michigan Milk Producers Association
Mount Joy Farmers Co-operative Association
Northwest Dairy Association, doing business as Darigold
Prairie Farms Dairy, Inc.
Tillamook County Creamery Association
United Dairymen of Arizona

The complaint also lists "Does 1-100," a placeholder for defendants who may be identified later. It says Dairy Farmers of America, based in Kansas City, Kansas, produces nearly a third of all U.S. fluid milk.

How the export program works

NMPF launched CWT in July 2003. The complaint quotes CWT's own description of itself as "a voluntary, producer-funded, marketing-focused, national program" developed by NMPF. CWT continues today under the NEXT name. The complaint says the rebranding does not change its allegations.

At first, CWT had two parts. The first was export assistance. The second was a "herd retirement" program. According to the complaint, from 2003 to 2010 participating farmers agreed to retire their entire dairy herds, which limited raw milk production. The complaint says CWT voted on October 26, 2010 to focus only on exports.

The complaint describes the export program this way:

Who pays. The complaint says each defendant cooperative has paid an assessment of $0.02 per hundredweight of milk it produces. A hundredweight, abbreviated "cwt," is 100 pounds and is the standard unit farmers use to sell milk. The complaint notes that "CWT" is a pun on that abbreviation.
What it covers. The complaint lists products currently eligible for help, including butter, natural and processed cheese, anhydrous milkfat (a concentrated butterfat), whole and skim milk powder, cream, extended shelf life and aseptic fluid milk, and milk protein concentrate.
How it works. Members submit requests for assistance on specific export sales, and CWT reviews them.
How big it is. The complaint cites a 2011 CWT statement that the program had participation equal to more than 70 percent of the U.S. milk supply. It says CWT has 15 member cooperatives as well as individual producers.

NMPF describes the program differently. In its public statements reported by the trade publication Dairy Producer, NMPF says NEXT helps U.S. products compete overseas and expands demand for the milk used to make them. Dairy Producer reported that NMPF said NEXT committed export assistance on more than 315 million pounds of dairy products in its first year, which ended in early July, while participating members paid half the former assessment rate.

Why plaintiffs say it raised prices

The plaintiffs argue the program raises U.S. prices in two ways. First, it directly reduces the supply of exported products, such as cheese and butter, left for American buyers. Second, they say it pulls raw milk away from domestic use, raising the cost of any product that uses milk.

The complaint also argues that the program only makes sense as coordination. It says no single cooperative would pay to help a competitor sell abroad unless all members expected the payments to raise domestic prices by more than they cost.

To support this, the complaint quotes the defendants' own statements:

In 2018, then-CWT chief executive Jim Mulhern said the program "is a way for dairy farmers to help one another by giving support that boosts milk prices for everyone," and that it could improve milk prices received by U.S. dairy farmers "by as much as $0.50/cwt."
NMPF's 2018 activities report said CWT sales over seven years had improved farmer milk prices "by an estimated average of $0.36/cwt. per year," which it called "a return nine times the investment" members had made.

The complaint also notes that the World Trade Organization bars member countries from paying export subsidies on farm products. It argues CWT gets around that ban because the subsidy comes from private competitors, not a government.

What consumers should know

You do not need to keep receipts or sign up for anything at this stage. If the case ever settles or reaches a judgment with a claim process, a court-approved notice would explain who qualifies and how to file.

The Capper-Volstead question

The case will likely turn on a 1922 law called the Capper-Volstead Act. That law gives farmer-owned cooperatives a limited exemption from antitrust law. It lets farmers join together to process, handle and market their products and agree on prices for what they sell.

The plaintiffs argue the exemption does not protect the export program. Their complaint makes three points. It says the exemption applies only to groups made up entirely of agricultural producers, and is lost if a cooperative conspires with a non-producer. It says the law lets cooperatives market the supply they have, not restrict supply. And it says the U.S. Department of Agriculture has recognized that it is illegal for cooperatives to restrain members' production.

The complaint asks the court to decide, as a common question for the class, "whether the Defendants are entitled to the limited protections of the Capper-Volstead exemption." The defendants are likely to argue that it does apply, but they have not yet filed a response.

Earlier lawsuits over the same program

This is not the first lawsuit about CWT. The complaint says CWT has settled earlier antitrust litigation for nearly $272 million:

Edwards v. NMPF, in the Northern District of California, which the complaint says settled in 2016 for $52 million, with a class period of 2003 to 2016.
First Impressions Salon v. NMPF, in the Southern District of Illinois, which the complaint says settled in 2020 for $220 million, with a class period of 2008 to 2013.

The complaint says the herd retirement program was the subject of that earlier litigation. Dairy Producer reported that when NMPF announced the $220 million settlement, it said neither the federation nor its members admitted wrongdoing. The new case says the export program violates antitrust law in a different way.

Who could be part of the class

The complaint proposes this class: "All natural persons and entities who indirectly purchased dairy products (including but not limited to fluid milk, cheese, butter, yogurt, ice cream, and other dairy products) in Counts II and III below, not directly from any Defendant, for personal consumption or end use, from January 1, 2018, through the present."

An indirect purchaser is someone who buys a product through a middleman, such as a grocery store, rather than from the producer. Under federal antitrust law, indirect purchasers generally cannot recover damages. Many states have passed laws, known as Illinois Brick repealer statutes, that let them recover under state law. That is why the complaint's federal claim seeks only a court order, while its state claims seek damages.

The state antitrust claim lists 32 jurisdictions, including California, Florida, Illinois, Michigan, New York, Virginia and Wisconsin. The complaint seeks actual and treble, or triple, damages under those laws, plus restitution, interest, attorneys' fees and a jury trial. It says class members "number in the millions."

A proposed class is not a certified class

The plaintiffs would need to persuade the court to certify the class before anyone else's claims are part of the case. Until then, the class definition can change, and the complaint says plaintiffs reserve the right to amend it.

For cases with open claim forms today, see our list of class action cases you can join. You can also read our coverage of a separate generic drug price-fixing settlement.

What happens next

As of October 16, 2026, the public docket index showed only the complaint. Law360's case listing shows the case assigned to U.S. District Judge Elizabeth W. Hanes. The defendants will have time to respond after they are formally served, and they could ask the court to dismiss the case. Class Action Pulse found no public statement from NMPF responding to the lawsuit's allegations as of publication.

Frequently asked questions

What is the dairy export lawsuit about?

Consumers claim that NMPF and 13 dairy cooperatives used a shared export subsidy program to reduce U.S. dairy supply and raise prices for milk, cheese, butter and other products. These are allegations.

Who are the defendants?

NMPF and 13 cooperatives, including Dairy Farmers of America, Darigold, Prairie Farms, Tillamook, Agri-Mark and Maola.

What is the NEXT program?

NEXT, or NMPF Exports and Trade, is the current name of the Cooperatives Working Together program. NMPF says it helps U.S. dairy compete overseas. The plaintiffs say it restrains domestic supply.

Can I join or file a claim?

Not yet. There is no settlement or claim form. The proposed class would cover people who bought dairy products for personal use, not directly from a defendant, since January 1, 2018.

What is the Capper-Volstead Act?

A 1922 law that gives farmer cooperatives a limited antitrust exemption for jointly marketing their products. The plaintiffs argue it does not cover the export program.

Has this program been sued before?

Yes. The complaint says earlier cases over CWT's herd retirement program settled for $52 million in 2016 and $220 million in 2020.