## Facts

- Multiple dicamba-related actions were centralized in an MDL in the Eastern District of Missouri.
- Antitrust class plaintiffs (farm purchasers) filed an Antitrust Master Class Action Complaint against Monsanto under Sherman Act § 2.
- Plaintiffs alleged Monsanto developed and sold the Xtend crop system (dicamba-tolerant soybean and cotton seed and associated dicamba herbicide products).
- Plaintiffs alleged dicamba was prone to off-target movement that injured non-dicamba-tolerant crops.
- Plaintiffs claimed that fear of off-target damage caused “defensive planting,” compelling farmers to buy dicamba-tolerant Xtend seeds, enabling Monsanto to charge supracompetitive prices and obtain or maintain monopoly power.
- Monsanto moved to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6), arguing plaintiffs lacked antitrust standing and failed to state a plausible § 2 claim.

## Issues

1. Whether plaintiffs plausibly alleged antitrust standing, including antitrust injury, based on alleged “defensive planting” and supracompetitive pricing tied to dicamba drift risk.
2. Whether the complaint plausibly pleaded Sherman Act § 2 claims for monopolization, attempted monopolization, and conspiracy to monopolize, including a properly defined market, monopoly power (or dangerous probability), and exclusionary conduct.

## Decision

- The court granted Monsanto’s Rule 12(b)(6) motion.
- The court held plaintiffs failed to allege antitrust injury and therefore lacked antitrust standing.
- The court further found pleading deficiencies as to § 2 elements, including market definition and exclusionary conduct.
- The Antitrust Master Class Action Complaint was dismissed without prejudice.

## Legal Principles

- Antitrust standing requires antitrust injury: harm of the type the antitrust laws were intended to prevent and that flows from the conduct that makes the challenged acts unlawful.
- Allegations centered on physical crop damage risk and resulting purchasing pressure do not, without more, constitute antitrust injury absent plausible allegations of harm to the competitive process.
- A § 2 monopolization claim requires plausible allegations of monopoly power in a properly defined relevant market and willful acquisition or maintenance of that power through exclusionary conduct.
- Attempted monopolization requires anticompetitive conduct, specific intent to monopolize, and a dangerous probability of achieving monopoly power in a relevant market.
- Conspiracy to monopolize requires a plausible agreement to monopolize and overt acts in furtherance of that agreement, not merely parallel conduct or ordinary business relationships.

## Conclusion

The court dismissed the antitrust master complaint because plaintiffs’ theory—defensive purchasing driven by dicamba drift risk—did not plausibly allege antitrust injury or exclusionary conduct causing harm to competition, and the § 2 claims were inadequately pleaded; dismissal was without prejudice.


In re Dicamba Herbicides Litig., 359 F. Supp. 3d 711 (E.D. Mo. 2019)