Keurig Green Mountain Loses Bid to Dismiss Monopoly Suit Over K-Cups
December 5, 2017
New York, December 5, 2017—A federal court has rejected a request by Keurig Green Mountain to dismiss multiple lawsuits charging that it has unfairly monopolized the market for single-serve “K-Cups” used in its popular coffee brewing machines.
“We’re very pleased that the court is allowing our clients—who seek to represent a class of direct purchasers—to pursue their claims seeking fair prices and consumer choice,” said Kellie Lerner of Robins Kaplan LLP®, which represents plaintiffs that purchased K-Cups directly from Keurig Green Mountain. “These are bedrock principles of a competitive marketplace.”
The proposed class represented by Robins Kaplan alleges that Keurig Green Mountain has taken active and unlawful steps to preserve its monopoly in the multibillion-dollar K-Cup market. Its complaint charges Keurig Green Mountain with buying up potential competitors, leaning on retailers to restrict access to competitive products, and creating a new brewer—the Keurig 2.0—that will not brew coffee from K-Cup-like cartridges made by unlicensed third parties. In fiscal year 2015, Keurig Green Mountain netted $3.645 billion in sales from its beverage pods, the most notable of which were single-serve K-Cups.
The court’s decision keeps alive the majority of the claims Keurig Green Mountain sought to dismiss across multiple lawsuits. In addition to the direct purchasers represented by Robins Kaplan, other plaintiffs charging Keurig Green Mountain with unlawful monopolistic conduct include a proposed class of indirect purchasers, such as individuals who purchased K-Cups from retailers, and makers of competing cartridges.
Bernard Persky and Meegan Hollywood of Robins Kaplan also represent the plaintiffs.
The multi-district litigation is In re: Keurig Green Mountain Single-Serve Coffee Antitrust Litigation. It is pending in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York before Judge Vernon S. Broderick. Judge Broderick heard oral arguments on Keurig Green Mountain’s motion to dismiss on July 9, 2015.
If you are interested in having us represent you, you should call us so we can determine whether the matter is one for which we are willing or able to accept professional responsibility. We will not make this determination by e-mail communication. The telephone numbers and addresses for our offices are listed on this page. We reserve the right to decline any representation. We may be required to decline representation if it would create a conflict of interest with our other clients.
By accepting these terms, you are confirming that you have read and understood this important notice.