A group of US consumers has filed a proposed class-action lawsuit against the National Milk Producers Federation (NMPF) and 13 dairy cooperatives, alleging that a long-running export assistance programme restricted domestic dairy supplies and contributed to higher prices for milk, cheese, butter and other dairy products.
The complaint was filed on 5 October 2026 in the US District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia. The plaintiffs are seeking injunctive relief, damages and other remedies under federal and state antitrust and consumer protection laws. The allegations have not been proven in court.
Lawsuit Targets Cooperatives Working Together Programme
The lawsuit centres on Cooperatives Working Together (CWT), a voluntary, producer-funded export assistance programme developed and managed by NMPF. The programme was subsequently rebranded as the NEXT Program in 2025.
The complaint names NMPF and 13 dairy cooperatives as defendants, including Dairy Farmers of America, Darigold, Tillamook County Creamery Association and Prairie Farms Dairy.
According to the plaintiffs, CWT enabled participating cooperatives to use member contributions to subsidise exports of US dairy products. They allege that the programme diverted products away from the domestic market without generating additional production, reducing the volume available to US buyers.
The complaint claims that the resulting supply restrictions allowed domestic dairy prices to rise above competitive levels. It alleges that consumers have paid higher-than-competitive prices for dairy products since 1 January 2018 and that participating cooperatives represented as much as 70% of US dairy-marketing cooperatives.
These claims remain allegations and will need to be assessed through the legal process.
Plaintiffs Claim Effects Extended Across Dairy Products
The plaintiffs argue that the alleged conduct affected a broad range of dairy products because raw milk is a common input for many categories, including fluid milk, cheese, butter, yoghurt and ice cream.
According to the complaint, restricting the supply of dairy products or increasing raw milk costs could influence prices across processing, distribution and retail channels. The plaintiffs further argue that higher input costs were passed down the supply chain to consumers.
The filing also raises the potential relationship between raw milk costs and regulated minimum milk prices under the US Federal Milk Marketing Order system.
The case therefore extends beyond individual dairy products to questions about competition, market supply and pricing throughout the US dairy sector. Whether the alleged programme activities caused the claimed price effects will be a central issue in the litigation.
NEXT Program Replaces CWT in 2025
The complaint acknowledges that CWT was revamped and replaced by the NEXT Program in 2025. NMPF describes NEXT as a voluntary, export-focused initiative intended to support international sales of US dairy products and improve alignment between domestic milk supply and demand.
Member cooperatives fund the programme through contributions based on the volume of milk they market.
Information from NMPF cited in the filing states that, between July 2025 and July 2026, NEXT committed export assistance for more than 315 million pounds of dairy products destined for international markets. NMPF reportedly described this as 73% more volume than in 2024, at half the CWT assessment cost to members.
However, the plaintiffs allege that the transition from CWT to NEXT did not end the conduct challenged in the lawsuit.
The legal dispute will need to examine the programme’s structure, its effects on domestic supply and whether the activities described in the complaint violated applicable competition laws.
Previous Antitrust Litigation Also Cited
The complaint references earlier antitrust litigation involving CWT. It states that two previous cases were settled for a combined total of nearly US$272 million: one for US$220 million in 2020 and another for US$52 million in 2016.
The filing distinguishes the current allegations from those earlier cases, describing the present dispute as involving a different mechanism.
It also refers to CWT’s former Herd Retirement Program, which operated between 2003 and 2010. Under that initiative, participating dairy farmers agreed to remove cows from their herds, limiting raw milk production. Litigation related to those supply restrictions has since been settled.
The existence of previous settlements does not establish liability in the current case, which concerns separate allegations that must be evaluated on their own facts.
Potential Implications for the US Dairy Industry
The lawsuit could have implications for dairy cooperatives, processors, retailers and consumers, depending on how the court assesses the claims.
Dairy cooperatives play an important role in collecting, marketing and exporting milk and dairy products. Export assistance programmes can support access to international markets, while changes in domestic availability may influence market conditions. The economic effects depend on factors including production levels, export demand, inventories and pricing arrangements.
The plaintiffs allege violations of Section 1 of the Sherman Act, alongside state antitrust and consumer protection laws and claims of unjust enrichment. They are seeking injunctive relief, actual and treble damages where permitted, legal fees, costs and interest.
The case remains at the allegation stage. Its outcome could clarify how courts assess export assistance programmes and their alleged effects on domestic competition and consumer prices.
For the US dairy industry, the proceedings highlight the continuing importance of transparent market practices, competition compliance and careful evaluation of how export strategies interact with domestic dairy supply.