John Deere announced a $99 million settlement agreement to resolve numerous farmer-initiated lawsuits filed in 2022 that alleged the company was monopolizing the repair market by limiting farmers’ access to diagnostic tools.
The multidistrict right-to-repair litigation was filed by at least 17 farms in multiple states. The preliminary settlement is subject to court approval.
“The settlement addresses the issues raised in the 2022 complaint and brings this case to an end with no finding of wrongdoing,” John Deere said in a news release.
As part of the settlement, Deere agrees to deposit funds into a class settlement fund, to be distributed to class members through a court-approved distribution plan.
The settlement was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois.
“John Deere Operations Center PRO Service is designed to enhance customers’ ability to care for their equipment how and when they want, and this settlement reaffirms Deere’s commitment to customer choice of how they want their equipment supported and access to the tools that enable it,” said Denver Caldwell, vice president of aftermarket and customer support for Deere.
All the antitrust lawsuits filed by farms across the country alleged John Deere violated the Sherman Act and farmers sought damages for farmers who paid for repairs from John Deere dealers beginning on Jan. 10, 2018.
The cases alleged the company monopolized the repair service market for John Deere brand agricultural equipment with onboard central computers known as engine control units.
According to a memorandum of law in support of the farmer plaintiffs’ motion for approval of the settlement, the plaintiffs hired an expert to determine the potential amount of damages in the case.
“On Aug. 13, 2025, plaintiffs served their opening expert report in support of class certification and merits issues. In that opening report, Dr. Russell Lamb, Ph.D., opined that Deere has substantial market power in the relevant antitrust markets, that Deere has economic incentives to exercise its market power to foreclose competition in the repair services market, and that Deere’s exclusionary conduct causes harm to competition,” according to the memorandum.
“Dr. Lamb developed a yardstick methodology, ultimately concluding that all or nearly all class members would have been impacted by Deere’s conduct. Utilizing that class-wide methodology, Dr. Lamb estimated overcharge damages to be in the range of $190 million to $387.3 million.”
The memorandum said Deere will be making available tools that will “enable farmers and IRPs (independent repair shops) to diagnose and repair problems without having to use the services of an authorized dealer.”
The settlement would require John Deere to provide relief for a 10-year period by no later than Dec. 31.
The $99 million settlement fund would be used to pay eligible class members and reimburse attorneys for costs, fees and expenses related to the settlement. It would allow farmer class members to preserve their right to sue John Deere for damages and/or to exclude themselves from the settlement.
“In addition to injunctive relief, the settlement provides for substantial monetary relief,” according to the memorandum.
By the time of distribution, the total settlement fund amount will exceed $100 million, according to the memorandum. “This represents a monetary recovery ranging from 26% to 53% of overcharge damages, far more than the typical antitrust settlement, which is 5% to 15%,” the memorandum stated.
The memorandum also gives insight into the willingness on both sides of the case to continue the litigation.
“While plaintiffs prevailed on Deere’s motion for judgment on the pleadings, there was no guarantee they would prevail at subsequent fact-finding stages imposing more rigorous burdens of proof or on appeal,” the memorandum said.
Based on documents provided by John Deere during discovery, according to the memo, the farmer class size is estimated to be “well in excess of 200,000 farmers.”
The settlement does not end a pending antitrust lawsuit filed by the Federal Trade Commission and joined by states in January 2025. That case, which is also in the U.S. District Court for the District of Northern Illinois, is pending. — Todd Neeley, DTN environmental editor
