The latest news, trends, analysis, interviews and podcasts from the global food and beverage industry
A group of US consumers has filed a proposed class-action lawsuit against the National Milk Producers Federation (NMPF) and a number of dairy cooperatives, alleging that a long-running export assistance programme artificially restricted domestic dairy supply and contributed to higher prices for milk, cheese and butter.
The complaint, filed on 5 October 2026 in the US District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, names NMPF and 13 dairy cooperatives as defendants, including Dairy Farmers of America, Darigold, Tillamook County Creamery Association and Prairie Farms Dairy. The plaintiffs are seeking injunctive relief under federal antitrust law, as well as damages under state antitrust and consumer protection statutes.
The allegations centre on Cooperatives Working Together (CWT), a voluntary, producer-funded programme developed and managed by NMPF. The programme was subsequently rebranded as the NEXT Program, although the complaint continues to refer to it as CWT.
According to the complaint, CWT's Export Assistance programme enabled member cooperatives to use voluntary contributions to subsidise exports of US dairy products.
The plaintiffs allege that this mechanism diverted dairy products away from the domestic market without creating additional production, reducing the available supply of products such as cheese and butter.
They claim that the resulting supply restriction allowed domestic dairy prices to rise above competitive levels, with the effects ultimately being passed through the dairy supply chain to consumers.
The complaint alleges that as much as 70% of US dairy-marketing cooperatives participated in the programme and that the conduct resulted in consumers paying “supracompetitive prices” for dairy products from 1 January 2018 onwards.
The plaintiffs argue that the alleged conduct affected the wider dairy market because raw milk is an important input for a range of products.
They claim that restricting milk supply could increase the prices of butter and cheese, while also feeding through into regulated minimum milk prices under the US Federal Milk Marketing Order system.
The complaint acknowledges that CWT was revamped and replaced by the NEXT programme in 2025.
According to information cited in the filing from NMPF, NEXT is a voluntary, export-focused programme designed to support the sale of US dairy products overseas and improve the alignment between domestic milk supply and demand. Member cooperatives fund the programme through contributions based on the volume of milk marketed.
The filing also cites NMPF's statement that, between July 2025 and July 2026, NEXT committed export assistance on more than 315 million pounds of dairy products destined for international markets. This was described by NMPF as 73% more volume than in 2024, while costing members half the CWT assessment.
The plaintiffs, however, allege that the change from CWT to NEXT did not end the conduct at issue in the lawsuit.
The complaint also points to previous antitrust litigation involving CWT.
It states that CWT previously settled two antitrust cases for a combined total of almost $272 million. One case settled for $220 million in 2020, while another settled for $52 million in 2016. The filing stresses that the current allegations concern what it describes as a different mechanism from those earlier cases.
The plaintiffs further allege that an earlier CWT initiative, the Herd Retirement Program, involved participating dairy farmers agreeing to remove cows from their herds between 2003 and 2010, thereby limiting raw milk production. Those supply restrictions were previously the subject of litigation that has since settled.
The case could have implications beyond the farm gate, as the complaint argues that higher raw milk costs were transmitted through processors, distributors and retailers to consumers.
The plaintiffs define the relevant market as US retail and wholesale dairy products, including fluid milk, cheese, butter, yoghurt and ice cream, among other products derived from raw milk.
They argue that because raw milk is a common input across these categories, retailers had limited opportunities to avoid higher costs by switching suppliers, resulting in the alleged overcharges being passed down the supply chain.
The lawsuit alleges violations of Section 1 of the Sherman Act, alongside state antitrust and consumer protection laws and claims for unjust enrichment.
The plaintiffs are seeking injunctive relief, actual and treble damages where permitted, as well as legal costs, fees and interest.
The allegations contained in the complaint have not been established in court, and the filing represents the plaintiffs' claims. The case will determine whether those claims can proceed and, ultimately, whether the defendants are liable for the alleged conduct.
