In Carlin et al. v. DairyAmerica Inc. et al., , the Ninth Circuit reversed the lower court and held that the filed-rate doctrine did not bar dairy farmers from challenging a buyers’ coalition that allegedly skewed prices by providing lowball rates to a milk pricing overseer. The decision reinstated a series of cases that in 2009 were consolidated in California.
The filed-rate doctrine generally prohibits an antitrust challenge to a rate that has been filed with a price regulator. In the dairy industry, the US Department of Agriculture regulates milk prices. The court held that an exception was appropriate in this case, because the policy underlying the doctrine did not apply. This was true because “the federal agency itself determined that the . . . prices were incorrect.”
The complaint alleges that the improper pricing of nonfat dry milk, or NFDM, which is used as an ingredient in manufactured dairy products such as butter and cheese. Defendant DairyAmerica, plaintiffs contend, provided incorrect pricing information for NFDM that lowered the rate and disadvantaged farmers. “Where the statute allows the agency to decide that a published tariff is unreasonable under controlling law,” the appellate court explained, “the filed-rate doctrine will not bar a plaintiff from seeking reparation from the imposition of the unreasonable rate.”