Sugar buyers allege price fixing

ST. PAUL, MINN. — On July 24, several large commercial food manufacturing and industrial sugar users filed a federal class action lawsuit with the US District Court of Minnesota, demanding a jury trial to seek damages and injunctive relief over allegations that some major US sugar producers have been unlawfully conspiring to raise, fix, maintain or stabilize refined sugar prices in the United States.

The plaintiffs involved include multiple large commercial food manufacturers, among them Frito-Lay and Grupo Bimbo. They allege that major sugar producers have been colluding with an intermediary identified as Commodity Information, Inc., an independent operation with Richard Wistisen listed as the sole principal, to influence pricing outcomes. According to the complaint, the alleged conduct dates back to at least Jan. 1, 2019. 

The plaintiffs claim they directly purchased substantial volumes of refined sugar from one or more of the defendants at artificially inflated prices.

The sugar producers named as defendants in the case include ASR Group International, Inc.; American Sugar Refining, Inc.; Domino Foods, Inc.; United Sugars Corp.; US Sugar; Michigan Sugar Co.; and Louis Dreyfus LLC. Commodity Information, Inc. and Wistisen also were named as defendants. 

“The facts don’t support their claims, and we will absolutely prove that as we defend this case,” said Mariane Martinez, spokesperson for ASR Group. Requests for comment were sent to the other defendants, but no additional responses were received by press time.

The allegations are similar to those first raised in a March 14, 2024, class-action lawsuit filed by KPH Healthcare Services. That case was subsequently consolidated with related sugar antitrust actions and transferred to the US District Court for the District of Minnesota. In October 2025, a court granted several defendants’ motions to dismiss, asserting that the plaintiffs lacked evidence to show there was an agreement between the defendants to fix prices and that disseminating price information alone is not a per se violation of the Sherman Act.