Containerboard Price-Fixing Lawsuit Moves Forward After Judge Rejects Dismissal Motion

A federal judge has denied both joint and individual motions by North American containerboard producers to dismiss a price-fixing lawsuit, clearing the way for the case to move into discovery.

Judge Mary M. Rowland of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois ruled on September 4 that the plaintiff, Artuso Pastry Foods Corp., had alleged enough facts to make a conspiracy plausible at this stage of the litigation. The suit, filed on July 29, 2025, accuses major containerboard and packaging producers of coordinating price increases dating back to November 2020.

Who's Named in the Suit

Ten defendants remain in the case:

• Cascades Inc., Cascades USA Inc. and Cascades Holding US, Inc.

• Georgia-Pacific LLC

• Greif Inc.

• International Paper Company

• Packaging Corporation of America (PCA)

• Pratt Industries, Inc.

• Smurfit Kappa North America LLC

• WestRock CP, LLC

Notably, Smurfit Kappa North America and WestRock CP remain defendants in their pre-merger capacities, while Smurfit WestRock plc — the parent entity formed through the 2024 merger of Smurfit Kappa and WestRock — was dismissed from the case separately.

What the Ruling Says

In a 49-page opinion, Rowland found that the complaint's allegations concerning six "lockstep or nearly lockstep" price increases, together with other circumstances alleged in the complaint, were sufficient at this stage to plausibly support an inference of coordinated conduct.

Importantly, the decision does not resolve whether an unlawful agreement actually existed or whether any company is liable. It only allows the case to proceed past the pleading stage.

The defendants had argued that the price increases could be explained without a conspiracy, pointing to surging demand during the COVID-19 pandemic and rising input costs, particularly for old corrugated containers (OCC), a key raw material.

Rowland was not persuaded that those explanations were sufficient, at the pleading stage, to overcome the allegations concerning the timing and pattern of the price increases.

The judge also cited structural features of the containerboard industry, including a wave of consolidation, in evaluating the allegations.

The complaint alleges that five defendants — International Paper, WestRock, PCA, Georgia-Pacific and Pratt — collectively accounted for approximately 74% of the North American containerboard market in 2022. The complaint separately alleges that the defendants collectively control at least 85% of the market today, compared with roughly 42% in the mid-1990s.

The opinion also discusses allegations surrounding a December 2023 Fastmarkets conference. According to the complaint, six defendants — Cascades, International Paper, Smurfit Kappa, Greif, PCA and WestRock — attended the conference. Approximately three weeks later, International Paper, WestRock, PCA, Pratt and Cascades allegedly announced price increases.

Rowland considered the timing of the conference and subsequent announcements among the circumstances supporting the plaintiff's allegations of a possible conspiracy.

PCA and Pratt Industries each filed separate motions arguing that the complaint did not sufficiently tie them individually to any conspiracy. Rowland rejected those arguments as well, finding that the complaint contained allegations sufficiently connecting both companies to the alleged conduct.

What Happens Next

The ruling lifts a previous stay on discovery.

Defendants must formally answer the complaint by September 29, 2026. The parties are then due to submit a proposed joint status report by October 5 setting out proposed dates for discovery and further proceedings.

Background on the Case

The litigation has already narrowed since it was filed. The original complaint named 12 defendants. Graphic Packaging International was voluntarily dismissed without prejudice on September 25, 2025, and Smurfit WestRock plc was voluntarily dismissed without prejudice in October 2025.

Artuso Pastry Foods, a Mount Vernon, New York-based bakery supplier, is seeking to represent a class of direct purchasers of containerboard, linerboard, corrugating medium and finished corrugated packaging.

The complaint seeks treble damages, injunctive relief and attorneys' fees, and alleges that the coordinated increases pushed prices up by more than 30% during the class period beginning in late 2020.

Those allegations remain unproven.

Echoes of Earlier Containerboard Litigation

The case revives memories of an earlier, decade-long fight involving many of the same companies.

In Kleen Products, filed in 2010, direct purchasers accused containerboard producers of conspiring to raise prices and limit supply between 2005 and 2010.

Several defendants settled during the litigation. PCA, for instance, agreed in April 2014 to pay $17.6 million to resolve the claims against it, a figure disclosed by the company in SEC filings at the time. Other producers also reached settlements as the case progressed.

Georgia-Pacific and WestRock CP continued to fight the claims. In August 2017, the district court granted both companies summary judgment, finding that the plaintiffs had not produced sufficient evidence of a conspiracy to take the case to trial.

The Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals later upheld that decision, concluding that the evidence was insufficient to establish the alleged collusion.

The earlier case offers context for how a containerboard price-fixing suit can play out over time, but it remains a separate proceeding with its own facts and procedural history.

Case Remains at an Early Stage

For now, the Artuso litigation remains in its early days.

Rowland's September 4 decision means only that the plaintiff's allegations are sufficient to proceed beyond the motion-to-dismiss stage. The court has made no finding that the defendants actually fixed prices or violated federal antitrust law.

The next phase is discovery, where both sides will seek and exchange documents, communications and other evidence relevant to the allegations and defenses.

For an industry already facing scrutiny over pricing and consolidation, the case is one worth watching as it develops.