On Saturday, Eagle Lake Farms Partnership (Plaintiff) brought a putative class action against Deere & Co. (Defendant) in the United States District Court of the Northern District of Illinois. The complaint alleges that Defendant has violated federal antitrust laws in connection with its provision of repair services for its branded agricultural equipment.
Plaintiff characterizes its action as being “… about John Deere’s monopolization of the repair service market for John Deere … brand agricultural equipment with on board central computers known as engine control units or ‘ECUs.’”
Plaintiff alleges that Defendant has “deliberately monopolized” the market for repair and maintenance services for such equipment “by making crucial software and repair tools inaccessible to farmers and independent repair shops.” Instead, Defendant has allegedly forced consolidation in its dealership network and has contractually prohibited the dealerships from providing “farmers and [independent] repair shops with access to the same software and repair tools the Dealerships have.” Through such conduct, “Deere and the Dealerships have cornered the Deere Repair Services Market in the United States for Deere-branded agricultural equipment controlled by ECUs and have derived supracompetitive profits from the sale of repair and maintenance services.”
“Plaintiff alleges that Defendant has “deliberately monopolized” the market for repair and maintenance services for such equipment “by making crucial software and repair tools inaccessible to farmers and independent repair shops.” Instead, Defendant has allegedly forced consolidation in its dealership network and has contractually prohibited the dealerships from providing “farmers and [independent] repair shops with access to the same software and repair tools the Dealerships have.” Through such conduct, “Deere and the Dealerships have cornered the Deere Repair Services Market in the United States for Deere-branded agricultural equipment controlled by ECUs and have derived supracompetitive profits from the sale of repair and maintenance services.”
The Plaintiff seeks to represent a class of purchasers of repair services in the United States with a Class Period of January 10, 2018 to the present. There are ten causes of action, eight under the Sherman Act, one for Promissory Estoppel and one for Unjust Enrichment.
The complaint lists three firms representing the Plaintiff: Foote, Mielke, Chavez & O’Neil LLC; Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP; and Emerson Firm, PLLC.
