On August 14, 2026, Corteva, Inc. agreed to pay $3.1 million to settle an antitrust lawsuit brought by the Arkansas attorney general (AG) alleging that the pesticide maker’s rebate and loyalty programs functioned as de facto exclusive dealing arrangements that suppressed competition from generic pesticide manufacturers.

Background and the Arkansas AG’s Claims

The Arkansas lawsuit did not arise in isolation. It was one of several enforcement actions challenging distributor loyalty programs used by Corteva and Syngenta. In September 2022, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) and a bipartisan coalition of state AGs filed an enforcement action alleging that the companies paid distributors to limit purchases of competing generic pesticide products. Three months later, Arkansas filed its own separate action asserting similar theories of anticompetitive harm under federal and state law.

The central allegation was that crop input distributors received payments only if they kept their purchases of competing generic pesticides below a certain threshold. According to the Arkansas AG, these loyalty programs functioned as de facto exclusive dealing arrangements by discouraging distributors from purchasing competing generic products. The complaint alleged that these arrangements allowed Corteva to maintain monopoly or market power in several crop-protection markets and resulted in farmers paying inflated prices. In March 2024, the Arkansas AG amended its complaint to expand the scope of the case by adding additional products.  

In February 2025, an Arkansas federal judge rejected Corteva and Syngenta’s attempts to have the case dismissed. The court concluded that the complaint adequately alleged that Arkansas consumers paid higher prices for crop-protection products as a result of the challenged loyalty programs and exclusive dealing arrangements.

Key Takeaways

The Corteva Arkansas settlement carries several implications for companies operating in agricultural input markets and other industries where rebate and loyalty programs are common commercial tools.

• State AGs are increasingly shaping antitrust enforcement. This case demonstrates that state AGs are not merely participants in federal antitrust investigations. States can bring their own actions, pursue their own remedies, and continue litigating even when parallel federal actions are pending. State AGs also have procedural tools that can allow them to keep cases in their chosen forums, increasing the likelihood that companies will face overlapping investigations and litigation in multiple jurisdictions.
• Loyalty, rebate, and market-share incentive programs remain a priority enforcement area. Although loyalty rebates are often lawful and procompetitive, enforcers continue to examine whether incentive structures effectively discourage distributors from purchasing competing products. Companies with significant market share should carefully evaluate whether rebate structures, loyalty thresholds, market-share incentives, or preferred provider programs could be characterized as de facto exclusive dealing arrangements.
• Antitrust exposure increasingly extends beyond a single agency or lawsuit. Corteva faced parallel scrutiny from the FTC, private plaintiffs, and multiple state AGs. The case illustrates how a single business practice can generate simultaneous investigations and litigation across multiple forums. Resolving claims in one proceeding may not eliminate exposure in others, making early antitrust review and risk assessment particularly important.

Why It Matters

The Corteva settlement reflects continued antitrust scrutiny of loyalty, rebate, and other distributor incentive programs, particularly where those programs can be characterized as discouraging purchases from competing suppliers. While these arrangements often serve legitimate and procompetitive business purposes, enforcers continue to examine whether they function as de facto exclusive dealing arrangements when implemented by firms with significant market power.

Companies that rely on distributor incentives, loyalty rebates, market-share thresholds, or similar programs should periodically review those arrangements through an antitrust lens, particularly in concentrated markets. Early risk assessment and compliance review can help identify potential concerns before they become the subject of government investigations or litigation.

Troutman Pepper Locke State Attorneys General Team

	Ashley Taylor – Co-leader and Firm Vice Chair Ashley is co-leader of the firm’s nationally ranked State Attorneys General practice, vice chair of the firm, and a partner in its Regulatory Investigations, Strategy + Enforcement (RISE) Practice Group. He helps his clients navigate the complexities involved with multistate attorneys general investigations and enforcement actions, federal agency actions, and accompanying litigation.
	Clay Friedman – Co-leader Clay co-leads the firm’s State Attorneys General practice and is nationally ranked by Chambers USA for AG Government Relations and in Best Lawyers for Advertising Law. He has dedicated his entire career to state attorney general and federal work, serving for nearly a decade in a senior role and more than 25+ years in private practice. Clay focuses his practice on helping industry-leading companies mitigate the risks associated with state and federal regulatory investigations and associated litigation.
	Chris Carlson Chris advises clients on regulatory, civil, and criminal investigations and litigation. With a background as an assistant attorney general, he provides practical guidance to clients with matters involving state attorneys general and federal regulatory agencies.
	Lauren Fincher Lauren has vast experience handling state attorneys general investigations, navigating complex regulatory compliance matters, and providing strategic counsel in enforcement actions across various industries. She helps clients manage high-stakes regulatory matters and guides them through complex legal landscapes.
	Stephen Piepgrass Stephen leads the firm’s Regulatory Investigations, Strategy + Enforcement (RISE) Practice Group, representing clients in single and multistate enforcement actions, including inquiries and investigations involving state attorneys general and other state and federal governmental enforcement bodies including the CFPB and FTC. He regularly represents clients in highly regulated sectors such as financial services, emerging technologies, health care, insurance, and education.
	Michael Yaghi Mike handles high-profile investigations led by state attorneys general, the FTC, and other federal and state regulatory bodies. He assists clients through these complex government inquiries, assisting them throughout the entire life cycle of investigations, from regulatory enforcement through formal litigation.
	Matthew J. Berns Drawing on his experience in senior leadership roles in the New Jersey Attorney General’s and Governor’s Offices and as a trial attorney for the U.S. Department of Justice, Matt provides an insider’s perspective when guiding clients through complex government investigations, litigation, and other actions.
	Jeff Johnson Jeff helps clients navigate complex regulatory and litigation challenges with local, state, and federal authorities. His clients benefit from his decade of broad litigation experience, understanding of emerging state and federal regulatory issues, and strong relationships with attorneys general across the U.S. In addition to handling cases from trial through state or federal appeals, Jeff serves as amicus counsel in advancing legal rules to support his clients’ vital interests.
	Jay Myers Jay assists clients in heavily regulated industries, including health care, energy, insurance, emerging industries, and data privacy. He provides both regulatory legal advice and government relations strategies. Jay’s past and current clients include Fortune 10 companies, startups, nonprofits, industry associations, and advocacy groups. Recognizing that state government matters are often complex and multifaceted, he utilizes regulatory guidance, government advocacy, or both in tandem to deliver tailored solutions for each client’s unique needs.
	Zoe Schloss Zoe represents clients in litigation and government investigations. As former deputy attorney general for the Delaware Department of Justice, she is an experienced litigator who understands the enforcement priorities that impact her clients. Zoe works with individuals and corporate entities in highly regulated industries, including financial services, health care, and energy.
	Jessica Birdsong Jessica is an associate in the firm’s Regulatory Investigations, Strategy + Enforcement Practice Group. She received her J.D. from the University of Richmond School of Law, magna cum laude, where she served as associate articles editor of the Journal of Law & Technology.
	Sydney Goldberg Sydney is an associate in the firm’s Regulatory Investigations, Strategy + Enforcement (RISE) Practice Group. She advises clients on regulatory compliance and state attorney general (AG) investigations in highly regulated industries, including health care and life sciences. She routinely helps clients navigate alcohol compliance and licensing issues, helping proactively manage regulatory risk.
	Troy Homesley Troy is an accomplished litigator who has represented and defended clients across a wide range of complex, high-stakes disputes at both the trial and appellate levels. He has represented technology companies, business executives, law firms, investment funds, high-ranking federal officials, international non-profits, and asylum seekers. Troy draws on his broad litigation experience to advise clients before litigation arises, while claims are pending or threatened, and leading up to and through trial and appeals.
	Namrata Kang Namrata (Nam) is an associate in the firm’s Regulatory Investigations, Strategy + Enforcement (RISE) Practice Group, based in the Washington, D.C. office. She routinely advises clients on a wide variety of state and federal regulatory matters, with a particular emphasis on state consumer protection laws relating to consumer financial services and marketing and advertising. Nam’s experience transcends multiple industries, including financial services, telecommunications, media, and sports betting.
	Michael Lafleur Michael is an associate in the firm’s Regulatory Investigations, Strategy, and Enforcement Practice Group. Based out of the firm’s Boston office, Mike has deep experience in litigation, investigations, and other regulatory matters involving state-level regulators and state attorneys general.
	William LaRosa Bill represents clients in complex regulatory investigations, state attorneys general matters, and enforcement proceedings. He draws on his experience as a former assistant U.S. attorney and as a private-sector litigator advising corporations in high-stakes litigation and regulatory investigations, including multistate AG investigations.
	Lane Page Lane represents financial institutions and other clients in federal and state regulatory investigations and complex civil litigation. He is particularly focused on consumer protection and fair lending issues.
	Dascher Pasco Dascher provides strategic counsel and representation to clients navigating regulatory compliance, enforcement, and high-stakes litigation. She regularly represents clients in both single and multistate state attorney general (AG) investigations and enforcement actions, as well as before other state enforcement bodies and local government agencies.
	Kyara Rivera Rivera Kyara is an associate in the firm’s Regulatory Investigations, Strategy + Enforcement Practice Group. She received her J.D. from the University of Richmond School of Law, cum laude, where she served as publications and online editor of the Public Interest Law Review.
	Timothy Shyu Timothy advises clients on regulatory compliance and enforcement in highly regulated industries, including health care and life sciences, data privacy and cybersecurity, and emerging technology. He assists companies in navigating complex investigations and enforcement actions, helping them mitigate regulatory risk proactively.
	Trey Smith Trey focuses his practice on representing and advising regulated utilities before state public utility commissions. He routinely helps clients obtain certificates of public convenience and necessity for transmission infrastructure. In this role, Trey works with his clients’ subject-matter experts to manage administrative proceedings, including by preparing initial filings; responding to discovery requests; drafting rebuttal testimony; and litigating any disputed issues.
	Daniel Waltz Dan helps clients navigate all aspects highly regulated relationships between industry participants and federal, state and local governments. Whether engaging with regulators, negotiating transactions or representing clients in the courtroom, he delivers solutions that help his clients achieve their strategic goals.
	Stephanie Kozol Stephanie is Troutman Pepper Locke’s senior government relations manager in the state attorneys general department.