Giant Eagle accuses chocolatiers of dark secret: price fixing
Giant Eagle believes its customers are paying too much for chocolate.
And the O'Hara-based supermarket chain has decided to make a federal case out of it.
In a lawsuit filed this week in U.S. District Court, the company claims the world's largest chocolate companies formed a conspiracy to raise prices and stifle competition.
Giant Eagle claims it was overcharged for $200 million worth of chocolate products between 2002 and 2007. It did not mention by how much it overpaid The Hershey Co. of Hershey; Mars Inc. of McLean, Va.; Nestle, S.A. of Switzerland; and Cadbury Schweppes plc of London, and subsidiaries. A Canadian network of food distributors, ITWAL Ltd., which allegedly aided in the conspiracy, also was named a defendant.
Giant Eagle said it bought about $189.3 million worth of chocolate candy products -- candy bars, seasonal novelty chocolate and boxed chocolate -- between 2002 and 2007 from Hershey, Mars and Nestle. Those three companies control 80 percent of the U.S. market and generate $15.6 billion in retail sales, the lawsuit said.
The Pittsburgh region's largest grocery chain, which estimated its annual sales at $7 billion, wants the court to award it three times the amount of damages it allegedly suffered because of the conspiracy, plus interest at the highest rate on those damages.
Giant Eagle spokesman Dick Roberts declined to comment. The company owns 158 stores and 65 franchises in Western Pennsylvania, Ohio, West Virginia and Maryland.
Giant Eagle's lawsuit is at least the fourth filed in the United States since last year that alleges a chocolate conspiracy.
With control of the chocolate market concentrated in the hands of so few companies, and the technical difficulties of entering the market and merchandising new products, "the chocolate candy product market was ripe for collusion," Giant Eagle claims.
The supermarket chain contends the three suppliers increased average prices 16 percent from December 2004 to March 2005, even though there was no evidence of increases in raw material prices.
Hershey and Nestle raised their candy prices by an average of 11.7 percent this year, Giant Eagle said.
The suit cites a 2007 investigation by the Canadian Competition Bureau, which claimed Nestle, Hershey and Mars conspired to fix prices in Canada. Canadian authorities said an informant described meetings among top food executives that led to the price fixing.
It's difficult to prove collusion in terms of price-fixing, unless one of the parties involved provides evidence, said Shawn Thomas, a professor at the University of Pittsburgh's Katz Graduate School of Business.
"To say they were overcharging would be very difficult. There are a myriad of ways of justifying a price increase," such as the higher cost of ingredients and higher price of fuel, Thomas said.
None of the defendants would comment on the Giant Eagle suit.
Show commenting policy
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.