Corteva agreed on Sept. 28 to pay 12 states $35 million and to dismantle for 10 years the loyalty rebate program that the Federal Trade Commission and the states say kept farmers from buying cheaper generic pesticides. The settlement resolves the claims against Corteva in the antitrust case the FTC brought in 2022, and it still needs a federal judge’s signature.
What the proposed order stops Corteva from paying for
According to the FTC’s Sept. 28 announcement, the order bars loyalty programs that condition payments on buying more than 50 percent of a pesticide active ingredient from Corteva. It also bans share-based programs that cap a distributor’s generic purchases below 50 percent, restricts volume-based programs that would recreate those schemes, and prohibits discrimination against customers who deal with competitors. The terms apply to all of Corteva’s post-patent active ingredients, meaning products whose patents have expired and for which generic versions can be sold.
The FTC’s original complaint alleged a “post-patent loyalty program that paid distributors to block competitors from selling cheaper generic products,” and the agency said that conduct allowed Corteva to keep prices elevated, forcing farmers to spend millions of dollars more for crop protection. David Shaw, principal deputy director of the FTC’s Bureau of Competition, said the settlement “will do away with unfair corporate practices that have hurt farmers.” The Commission approved the stipulated order 2-0.
Rebates that hinged on 90 percent of a distributor’s supply
California Attorney General Rob Bonta’s office described the mechanism in more detail. The complaint accused the companies of loyalty rebate programs that required distributors to purchase 90 percent or more of their annual supply from the defendants in exchange for rebates, which the states said maintained market share and inflated prices after patent and regulatory exclusivity ended. The California settlement announcement says the settlement caps purchase thresholds at 50 percent for covered ingredients, adds reporting requirements to monitor compliance and lets generic competition enter the market. Bonta said California farmers and small businesses “deserve a competitive marketplace where they have access to affordable products.”
Twelve states share one payment, and no split is published
The states are California, Colorado, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Minnesota, Nebraska, Oregon, Tennessee, Texas, Washington and Wisconsin. The FTC said the $35 million goes to those state plaintiffs “to resolve their monetary claims.” Neither the FTC release nor the California and Washington attorney general releases state each state’s share or say the money will be paid to farmers. Washington Attorney General Nick Brown said the outcome “will promote a level playing field in the market where Washington farmers have more choices and ultimately lower costs.” Any relief to farmers, then, is expected mainly through prices rather than through checks.
Why the age of the people who farm matters here
Crop protection is a recurring expense for the people who run the nation’s farms, and those operators skew older. The U.S. Department of Agriculture’s 2022 Census of Agriculture counted 3.4 million producers on 1.9 million farms covering 880.1 million acres, with an average age of 58.1 years. Producers 65 and older numbered 1.29 million, or 38 percent of the total. The census also found that 53 percent of producers reported involvement in estate or succession planning decisions. For operators near or past retirement age, what generic pesticides cost is a question about farm income, and about what a farm is worth when it changes hands, as much as a question about the next growing season.
The signature and the case that continues
The FTC noted that stipulated orders have the force of law when approved and signed by the district court judge in the Middle District of North Carolina, so the terms are proposed until that happens. The FTC’s case page lists the matter as FTC v. Syngenta and Corteva, civil action 22-cv-828, filed Sept. 29, 2022, in that court. In its release the Commission said litigation against Syngenta, the second defendant, remains ongoing, and the settlement does not resolve those claims. The court denied both companies’ motions to dismiss on Jan. 12, 2024, according to the docket summary. The complaint asked the court to bar both companies from continuing the programs and from entering similar arrangements in the future, and “to restore competition to affected markets.” The California attorney general’s office said its own claims against Syngenta remain pending, so the Corteva order settles one half of the case.
Washington’s release said the settlement was filed in court late Friday, Sept. 25, three days before the FTC and the states announced it. The filing date matters because stipulated orders take effect only after the judge signs, and the FTC’s release does not give a date for that.
The FTC titled its announcement as protections “to lower pesticide prices for American farmers.” Whether prices fall depends on the judge approving the order and on how distributors change their generic purchasing once the rebate thresholds are capped at 50 percent, and the agency’s release does not project a dollar figure for that effect.
Scam response basics for older account holders
Older adults who bank, shop and take calls at home are routinely contacted by people posing as banks, agencies and vendors. The first hour after a bad call or a shared account number often decides how much of the loss can be recovered.
The Senior Fraud Defense & First-Hour Recovery Kit contains the first-hour recovery plan, the free credit-freeze steps and a fraud evidence and report log.
Log each suspicious call, report and account contact in one place →
This article was produced with AI assistance and checked against the primary sources linked above.
Warren Cohen is a finance writer based in Phoenix, Arizona, covering personal finance topics including credit, banking, and beginner investing. He earned his degree in business administration from Arizona State University and began his career working in consumer finance, where he gained direct experience with lending and credit systems. He now writes for personal finance websites and fintech platforms, focusing on clear, practical content that helps readers make informed financial decisions.
