John Deere’s legal troubles continue to mount, as a growing number of class action lawsuits accuse the Illinois-based farming and heavy equipment maker of installing onboard central computers that block farmers and other Deere customers from repairing and maintaining their own equipment, monopolizing the market and violating federal antitrust laws.
On March 24, attorney Robert Foote and others from the firms of Foote Mielke Chavez & O’Neil, of west suburban Geneva, and Zwerling Schachter & Zwerling, of New York, filed suit in Chicago federal court against Deere & Co.
The complaint, filed on behalf of named plaintiffs Lloyd Family Farms, of Virginia, marked the fifth such class action filed against Deere in the Northern District of Illinois, and the third to which the Foote Mielke attorneys have signed their names.
The Lloyd Farms complaint came about two and a half months after the first such class action suit was filed against Deere in Illinois’ Northern District by attorneys with the firms of Wexler Boley & Elgersma, of Chicago; Gustafson Gluek, of Minneapolis; and Cotchett Pitre & McCarthy, of Burlingame, California. That lawsuit was filed Jan. 12, on behalf of named plaintiffs Forest River Farms, of North Dakota.
In the weeks since, three other similar complaints have been added to the docket against Deere, including cases filed by the firms of Wallace Miller, of Chicago, and Glancy Prongay & Murray, of New York.
The complaints all level similar allegations: That Deere violated federal antitrust law by monopolizing the repair market for its agricultural products, by installing engine control units (ECUs) and then denying farmers and independent repair shops the “crucial software and repair tools” they need to repair and maintain their tractors.
This allegedly forces farmers to turn exclusively to Deere’s network of dealerships to fix and maintain their equipment.
“For example, an owner of a Tractor may be able to replace the transmission on their equipment, but that Tractor will not operate unless proprietary John Deere Software ‘approves’ the newly-installed part,” the plaintiffs wrote. “A farmer or mechanic may have the necessary mechanical parts, knowledge, and the skill to repair a Tractor, but without access to the Software, the repair is not recognized by the Tractor’s ECU, making the repair ineffective and the Tractor still unable to function properly.”
The complaints note Deere’s repair business is “three to six times more profitable than its sales of original equipment.” The complaint asserts Deere’s alleged actions to “corner the market” on the repair and maintenance of its equipment has meant farmers and other Deere equipment owners are forced to pay millions of dollars more to fix their tractors than they otherwise would.
“John Deere has demonstrated that it understands that farmers have a right to repair their own Tractors, while at the same time misleading the public regarding how easy it is for farmers or independent repair shops to perform repairs,” the plaintiffs wrote.
“… The motive behind restricting access to the Software is simple: Deere and its Dealerships did not want their revenue stream from service and repair - a far more lucrative business than original equipment sales - to end when the equipment is purchased, as it often did in the past when owners could, and did, perform their own repairs or rely on individual repair shops,” the plaintiffs wrote. “Deere’s scheme to prevent independent repairs creates additional revenue for Deere over the entire useful life of every piece of equipment it sells.”
The plaintiffs are asking the court to expand their actions to include anyone who has paid Deere to repair their tractors since March 2018. They estimate the total number of class members will number in the thousands of customers, throughout the country.
The plaintiffs are asking for court orders blocking Deere from continuing to allegedly prevent Deere equipment owners from repairing their equipment themselves, and for orders awarding unspecified treble damages, plus interest and attorney fees.
The parties are also awaiting a decision from the federal Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation, to determine if the cases will be consolidated into a single action in Chicago federal court.
Deere is represented in the cases by attorney Amanda Balos Maslar, and others with the firm of Jones Day, of Chicago.