Alleged collusion and unlawful price-fixing between six of the world’s leading salmon producers have been detailed in a new collective action proceeding filed in the UK Competition Appeal Tribunal, which is demanding compensation for millions of consumers.
The collective action is seeking up to GBP 382 million for UK consumers who overpaid for at least four years because of alleged breaches of competition law by the proposed defendants, Mowi and its subsidiary Mowi Holdings, SalMar, Lerøy, Scottish Sea Farms and Grieg.
According to the claim, the six defendants worked together to increase the price of farmed Atlantic salmon through various methods. They are accused of manipulating benchmark prices for Norwegian Atlantic salmon by using related entities to purchase salmon at inflated prices, and unlawfully exchanging commercially sensitive information about the price and volumes of sales of farmed Atlantic salmon. Senior executives at rival companies allegedly planned to rig prices via email correspondence, and at various meetings and “working dinners”.
It is claimed this was cartel behaviour and a breach of competition laws, which are designed to protect consumers.
According to the claim, this unlawful overcharging of consumers continued until 31 May 2019, shortly after the European Commission raided the offices of various Atlantic salmon farmers as part of a major investigation into price-fixing in February 2019. In January 2024, the Commission expressed its preliminary view that various Norwegian companies, including Mowi, SalMar, Lerøy and Grieg, colluded to fix short-term farmed Atlantic salmon prices in Europe between 2011 and 2019.
It highlights that some of the defendants have also already contributed to multimillion-dollar payments to settle class-action lawsuits bought on behalf of salmon consumers and other buyers in the US and in Canada.
The new legal action claims the alleged cartel’s behaviour drove farmed Atlantic salmon prices up to 20% higher than they otherwise would have been over the course of the alleged conspiracy. The defendants charged higher prices to supermarkets and other retailers in the first instance; then the retailers passed on the majority of the price increases to consumers. The legal claim seeks fair compensation on behalf of up to 44 million UK consumers.
The legal action has been filed on behalf of UK consumers by Waterside Class Limited, a company set up to bring this claim. Waterside’s sole director and representative is Anne Heal, a former Director of Regulatory Affairs at BT and Managing Director of Strategy at Openreach. Waterside has instructed law firm Simmons & Simmons and barristers Sarah Abram KC, Matthew Kennedy (both of Brick Court Chambers) and Camilla Cockerill (of 4 New Square Chambers) to represent it.
Heal has set up an advisory panel of experts to offer additional guidance and support during the proceedings, comprising Kate Wellington, former Lead Lawyer for Policy & Communications at the consumer champion group Which?, Helen Charlton, the current Chair of the Financial Services Consumer Panel and Nicholas Spearing, an expert in competition law with more than 40 years of experience, and a former partner at law firm Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer LLP.
“This action claims that some of the Atlantic salmon farming industry’s biggest companies have conspired to raid the wallets of hard-working shoppers. This action aims to seek fair redress for the millions of British consumers who we say spent years overpaying for one of the UK’s favourite and highly nutritious foods,” Heal said.
“By bringing this collective action, I want to give a voice to affected consumers across the UK, and see them properly compensated for their losses. I also want to bring attention to market practices which harm consumers, and hold the defendant companies to account for their alleged wrongdoing.”
Patrick Boylan, Head of Simmons and Simmons’ UK Dispute Resolution Group, who is leading the litigation, added: “Competition laws are there to protect everyone. Thankfully, we have a fast-evolving collective proceedings regime to help vindicate consumers’ rights. We are looking forward to working with Waterside and Anne Heal to bring this claim against Mowi, SalMar, Lerøy, Scottish Sea Farms and Grieg in respect of their alleged unlawful conduct.”
It is alleged that the defendants worked together by creating artificial supply and purchase orders to drive up prices on the NASDAQ Salmon Index, regardless of actual levels of demand or production. The NASDAQ Salmon Index governs global farmed Atlantic salmon spot prices.
The claim asserts grocery retailers in the UK were forced to overpay and passed a large part of these additional costs on to their customers.
The claim has been brought on behalf of UK consumers. It is alleged that consumers, not retailers, bore the majority of the expense of artificial price rises – based on evidence of actual retail price changes, and the demonstrable pricing power held by retailers to pass higher farmed Atlantic salmon prices on to their customers.
According to the claim, Mowi, SalMar, Lerøy, Scottish Sea Farms and Grieg have breached the prohibition on cartel activity imposed by section 2 of the UK Competition Act 1998, as well as Article 101 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union and Article 53 of the European Economic Area Agreement. The European provisions are relevant because they were in force in the UK at the time of the alleged collusion, including as part of the agreed post-Brexit transitional arrangements between the EU and the UK.
This legal action is entirely separate from another claim brought in the Competition Appeal Tribunal in March 2024 against a similar group of defendants by a number of supermarkets in the UK. It differs from that claim because it identifies consumers, rather than retailers, as the principal victims of the cartel.
Waterside, representing the consumer claimants, will argue that retailers passed on the majority of higher salmon prices to their customers, and therefore that much of the damage caused by alleged price-fixing has ultimately been suffered by consumers rather than retailers.
