The U.S. Justice Department and 17 states announced settlement agreements with three large egg producers to resolve allegations of illegal collusion to raise egg prices. The companies accused—Cal-Maine Foods, Versova, and Hickman’s Egg Ranch—were alleged to have coordinated behind the scenes to artificially inflate daily egg price quotations used by buyers nationwide.

Prosecutors and state officials said the scheme involved coordinated bidding submissions to Urner Barry Publications, the organization that helps determine an index key used to set prices for billions of eggs sold to retailers, restaurants, and other customers. The complaint alleged that this coordination resulted in higher prices for consumers.

Under the settlements, the companies collectively will pay $3.3 million and donate 53 million eggs. The eggs would be distributed through food banks and nonprofits, with the money allocated to the states. Officials said the settlement terms also require the companies to take steps such as adopting antitrust compliance programs and prohibiting communication with competitors about pricing and bidding strategies.

The settlements do not include admissions of wrongdoing by the companies. The Justice Department said the proposed agreements address years of conduct that it said affected Americans’ finances and daily life, and the settlements still must be approved by a court.

The case follows a period when U.S. egg prices rose to record highs in 2025 amid a bird flu outbreak that reduced supply. Companies tied the spike to the avian flu and other market pressures, while critics argued that major producers exploited their market power. After investigators became involved and companies were instructed to preserve documents, the complaint said egg price quotations fell and consumer prices later dropped.

Cal-Maine, the only publicly traded company among the three, said the allegations are baseless and that it expects to continue focusing on supplying eggs and egg-based prepared foods. Versova and Hickman’s also disputed parts of the narrative and pointed to their own roles and compliance commitments. Some advocacy groups said the settlements are insufficient compared with the scale of consumer harm, though the agreements still move the legal process forward.