Keurig Green Mountain Single-Serve Coffee
The Keurig Green Mountain Single-Serve Coffee Antitrust Litigation addresses alleged monopolization and exclusive-dealing conduct in the single-serve coffee pod market — specifically, claims that the dominant manufacturer used technological lock-out features in its brewing systems and exclusive arrangements with roasters and retailers to keep competing pod makers from gaining meaningful market share. Centralized in the Southern District of New York in 2014, the docket houses two structurally different plaintiff populations: purchasers alleging overcharges, and competing pod manufacturers and roasters alleging exclusionary conduct that foreclosed their access to the market.
What drives resolution risk in this docket differs sharply between those two tracks. Purchaser overcharge claims rest on relatively conventional antitrust damages methodology once market definition and anticompetitive conduct are established. Competitor foreclosure claims require proving a monopolization or exclusive-dealing theory under Section 2 of the Sherman Act — a more demanding standard that typically requires showing the exclusionary conduct had no legitimate business justification and caused measurable harm to competition, not just to the individual competitor. That distinction shapes both the litigation timeline and the range of possible outcomes for each track independently.
For litigation professionals assessing monopolization-adjacent antitrust claims, this docket is a useful example of how purchaser and competitor theories can proceed on separate but related tracks within a single MDL, each carrying its own resolution risk profile. Criterica Intelligence's platform surfaces this track-level distinction — purchaser overcharge claims versus competitor foreclosure claims — across every active MDL rather than treating a combined docket as a single undifferentiated matter.
Purchasers allege they paid supracompetitive prices for single-serve coffee pods, while competing pod makers and roasters allege the manufacturer used lock-out technology and exclusive-dealing arrangements to foreclose competition in the single-serve coffee market.
Both sets of claims arise from the same alleged conduct — dominant-market-position tactics in the single-serve coffee market — so the JPML consolidated them for coordinated pretrial proceedings even though they proceed on different legal theories and timelines.
Competitor claims here typically require a Section 2 Sherman Act monopolization or exclusive-dealing theory, which demands showing the challenged conduct lacked a legitimate business justification and harmed competition broadly, not just the individual competitor.
It shows that overcharge and foreclosure theories arising from the same alleged conduct can proceed on separate tracks with distinct resolution timelines within one MDL — a structural nuance Criterica Intelligence tracks rather than collapsing into a single phase label.
Statistics shown reflect historical or illustrative model outputs derived from real case data. They are not predictions or guarantees of any individual outcome. Litigation results depend on facts, jurisdiction, judge, and counsel, and vary case by case. Model accuracy is subject to selection effects and changing legal dynamics.