Published
July 26, 2024
Updated
August 1, 2026
This page concerns commercial food preparers buying 40-ounce-or-larger tuna through six distributors—not the separate consumer or direct-purchaser settlements. The August 2024 claim period is closed, and the official site still does not post a current StarKist/Lion final-approval or distribution update.
Current Status
The claim and dispute deadline passed on August 30, 2024, and the scheduled November 15, 2024 fairness hearing is historical. The official commercial-food-preparer website still describes the StarKist and Lion agreements in preliminary terms and lists only their preliminary approval orders. Its document library contains an older final approval order for the separate Chicken of the Sea settlement, which should not be mistaken for a final order on these two agreements. No public payment notice for the $3.875 million StarKist/Lion funds is posted.StatusHearing Passed; Current Final Order Not Posted
Claim DeadlineAugust 30, 2024 — Passed
Combined New Funds$3.875 Million
Potential BenefitPro Rata Based on Qualifying Purchases
What Was the Commercial Tuna Lawsuit About?
Commercial food preparers alleged that major packaged-tuna suppliers and related companies conspired to fix, raise, and maintain prices. According to the plaintiffs, the alleged coordination caused restaurants, delis, caterers, cafeterias, schools, hospitals, and other food-service buyers to pay more for large-format packaged tuna than they would have paid in a competitive market. StarKist, its parent, and the Lion defendants denied civil liability. The proposed settlements were compromises and did not establish the amount of any particular purchaser's alleged overcharge.Which Purchases Were Covered?
The commercial-food-preparer class focused on packaged tuna in containers of 40 ounces or more purchased indirectly from a tuna producer but directly from DOT Foods, Sysco, US Foods, Sam's Club, Walmart, or Costco. Qualifying purchases had to occur from June 1, 2011 through December 31, 2016. Small consumer-size cans bought for household use belonged to a different litigation track, and businesses that bought directly from a tuna manufacturer were addressed by a separate direct-purchaser track.Where Did Purchases Have to Occur?
The settlement notice covered qualifying purchases in the District of Columbia and 27 states: Arizona, Arkansas, California, Florida, Iowa, Kansas, Maine, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, North Dakota, Oregon, Rhode Island, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Utah, Vermont, West Virginia, and Wisconsin. The location requirement is part of the class definition and cannot be replaced by the buyer's current residence.How Much Did StarKist and Lion Agree to Pay?
StarKist and its parent agreed to contribute $3.6 million to the commercial-food-preparer track, while the Lion entities agreed to contribute $275,000. The combined new amount was therefore $3.875 million. That money was to be added to the applicable settlement administration and distributed after court-approved deductions under the allocation plan. It was not a flat payment per restaurant or a $3,875 benefit for each claimant.Who Needed to File or Dispute a Purchase Value?
A business that received a postcard showing a qualifying purchase value generally did not need to resubmit a prior Chicken of the Sea claim; doing nothing preserved the listed value for a pro rata share if the settlements became effective. A recipient who disputed the listed value, or whose postcard showed no qualifying value, had to submit a dispute or claim with supporting purchase information. People not identified in the records could also use the claim process if they believed they qualified. All of those submissions were due August 30, 2024.How Would Payments Be Calculated?
The net settlement funds were to be allocated pro rata using qualifying purchase values. A business with a larger verified purchase value would receive a larger share than one with a smaller value, subject to the final plan, approved claims, fees, expenses, and administration costs. The notice also contemplated the possibility of a later distribution if money remained and a court authorized it. Until the administrator posts an approval and distribution update, no exact check amount or mailing date should be inferred.Why This Page Does Not Say 'Payments Issued'
Several tuna settlement tracks share the same multidistrict case number, but they involve different classes, funds, administrators, and orders. Consumer end payers received final approval for separate StarKist and Lion agreements in November 2024, and direct purchasers have their own payment history. Those events do not prove that the commercial-food-preparer StarKist/Lion agreements covered here completed the same steps. The official CFP documents page remains the controlling public source.What Former Claimants Should Do
A business that filed or received a postcard should keep the notice ID, distributor records, purchase documentation, and any administrator correspondence. The filing period is closed, but the official site may eventually post a final order or payment notice. Do not use a consumer tuna claim site or the separate direct-purchaser site to try to update this commercial-food-preparer claim; those programs do not administer the same class.Official Information
Review the latest information on the official commercial-food-preparer tuna documents website.
Case
In re Packaged Seafood Products Antitrust Litigation — CFP Track
Case Number
3:15-md-02670-DMS-MSB
Court
U.S. District Court, Southern District of California
Class Period
June 1, 2011–December 31, 2016
StarKist Fund
$3.6 million
Lion Fund
$275,000
Claim Deadline
August 30, 2024
Official Website
official commercial-food-preparer tuna documents
For more class actions, recalls, and refunds, keep scrolling below.
