Judge allows antitrust claims against Keurig to proceed to trial

Judge allows antitrust claims to proceed

Judge Vernon S. Broderick of the Southern District of New York issued a 139-page opinion on Sept. 18, made public Oct. 20, that allows several antitrust and false advertising claims against Keurig Green Mountain to proceed toward trial. The plaintiffs include JBR Inc., doing business as Rogers Family Company, TreeHouse Foods, and McLane Company. These claims involve the allegation that Keurig Green Mountain, now a subsidiary of Keurig Dr Pepper, unlawfully maintained its market position and kept coffee pod prices high after a K-Cup patent expired in 2012. I find Keurig’s attempt to dismiss these allegations failed. Specifically, the judge ruled that agreements with brands like Starbucks and Dunkin’ may have prevented nascent competitors from producing enough coffee pod varieties to compete with Keurig. The judge also allowed claims involving Keurig’s agreements with packaging and machinery suppliers that restricted their work for competitors, as well as distributor contracts that allegedly limited sales of independently manufactured pods. The ruling preserves claims that Keurig improperly tied brewer sales to its own or licensed coffee pods through distributor agreements.

Legal battle details and next steps

The litigation consolidated 2014 lawsuits in New York and draws from disputes dating back to 2011, when Keurig sued Rogers for patent infringement. The judge also dismissed certain retail agreements and earlier patent lawsuits. While the judge dismissed claims regarding Keurig 2.0 brewer design and allegations of a conspiracy among major roasters, he found that certain statements from Keurig suggesting third-party pods could impair brewer performance or pose safety risks were "literally false."

Rogers Family Coffee Co. CEO Lisa Smoot called the unsealed ruling a "huge win" for her company. Keurig’s spokesperson stated the ruling "validates several important portions of our defense and dismisses many of the plaintiffs’ theories," but I find that such dismissals do little to stop the core antitrust allegations. I find the judge’s finding that Keurig’s safety claims were "literally false" to be a particularly damning piece of evidence. The court requested availability for a possible New York trial in the second quarter of 2027, although the case could return to California for trial.