After 12 years of litigation, the Plaintiff Rogers Family Coffee Co., has finally succeeded in getting its antitrust and false advertising claims against coffee giant Keurig referred for a jury trial. In a 139-page Opinion & Order issued September 18, 2026, and now unsealed, U.S. District Judge Vernon S. Broderick of the Southern District of New York denied Keurig’s request to end the case on the central questions of monopoly power, harm to competition, and the exclusionary contracts at the heart of Rogers Family Coffee Co.’s claims and ruled that Plaintiff’s case may proceed to trial. The Court also found that plaintiffs may prove Keurig’s illegal tying of the sale of their Keurig brewer with their coffee pods. The Court also found that Keurig made false statements that may give rise to damages.

The ruling came in In re: Keurig Green Mountain Single-Serve Coffee Antitrust Litigation, Docket No. 14-MD-2542. Keurig had asked the Court to rule in its favor on every claim without a trial. The Court refused.

Keurig’s alleged serious anticompetitive conduct has been ongoing for decades. Industry Goliath, Keurig Dr. Pepper, once described by a senior Peet’s executive as “our favorite monopolists,” has allegedly engaged in oppressive, anticompetitive business practices according to Rogers Family Coffee Co. Keurig has abused its more than 85% market share to stifle virtually all competition and keep prices artificially high. Following the loss of its patent in 2012 and the rapid growth of independent competitors, Keurig has been protecting its business with monopolistic, abusive business practices to squeeze out independent competitors, pressure distributors and retailers, and rig prices. Economists estimated that Keurig’s anticompetitive conduct resulted in approximately $390M in antitrust damages (pre-trebling) plus ~$109M in disgorgement tied to false-advertising claims through mid-2025.

Rogers Family Coffee Co.’s CEO Lisa Smoot commented: “This is a huge win for us. Our family company has been pursuing justice for over a decade. We remain committed to seeing this through to a just decision.”

Rogers Family Coffee Co. does business as JBR, Inc., a second generation family run coffee company that owns and operates San Francisco Bay Coffee.

In the Court’s Words

On Keurig’s alleged exclusionary agreements: One of the key allegations in the complaint was that Keurig entered into a series of agreements with roasters, suppliers, and distributors that contained explicit contractual language forbidding these entities from working with and assisting unlicensed pod companies. The Court ruled that these contractual provisions raised triable issues of fact as to whether such provisions caused or contributed to Keurig gaining monopoly power. A jury will be allowed to consider the effects of the agreements both singularly and collectively on the market. Several key sections from the Opinion & Order for Summary Judgement:

  • “Plaintiffs raise at least a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether the allegedly anticompetitive contracts signed by Keurig as between the Roaster, Supplier, and Distribution Agreements, in aggregate, resulted in substantial foreclosure.” (Op. at 80)

  • “Plaintiffs may proceed to trial on this theory . . .” (Op. at 59, as to the Roaster Agreements.)

On Keurig’s alleged monopoly power over pods: The Court rejected Keurig’s argument that new competitors entering the market after its patents expired proved there was no monopoly:

  • “That there was some entry in the market after Keurig’s patent expired merely tracks quotidian economic theory and in no way forecloses the possibility that there would have been even more entry and more competitive conditions in the market had Keurig not erected barriers to entry.” (Op. at 44)

On Keurig’s alleged monopoly power over brewers: The Court sided with Rogers Family Coffee Co., finding that “Keurig’s motion for summary judgment on monopoly power in the brewer market is therefore DENIED.” (Op. at 47)

  • “Plaintiffs allege and provide competent support for during the Relevant Time Period weighs heavily in favor of Keurig having monopoly power in the brewer market, but that I must still consider the relevant market characteristics as a whole before finding monopoly power.” (Op. at 45)

  • “Although Keurig points to entry generally, it cannot demonstrate that a large competitor grew to prominence during the period of the purported monopoly that could compete with the dominant player and ensure that economic conditions remained competitive.” (Op. at 45-46)

  • “Considering the market as a whole, there are no circumstances that would tend to rebut the inference of monopoly power that I must draw from Keurig’s consistently high market share.” (Op. at 47)

On Keurig’s alleged illegal tying: The court stated that “Plaintiffs have done enough to show that the only viable option for purchasers is to purchase the tying and tied products together in a single package.” (Op. at 67)

On Keurig’s alleged harm to Rogers’ business: The court stated that “JBR has done enough to raise a disputed fact issue concerning whether Keurig’s purportedly anticompetitive conduct caused it to lose business relationships with partners and caused it injury as a result of that tort.” (Op. at 123)

On Keurig’s alleged harm to consumers. The Court stated that there is “sufficient evidence to tend to suggest that Keurig’s behavior reduced output and raised prices in the market.” (Op. at 33-34) The Court also rejected Keurig’s argument that falling prices and rising output defeat the claims:

  • “[I]f a patent holder engages in anticompetitive conduct that causes prices to only drop by forty or fifty percent rather than the ninety some-odd percent that economic models would predict as a result of generic entry, then this harms consumers, who pay higher prices than they would have had the anticompetitive conduct not occurred. Plaintiffs allege such exclusionary acts here and support their claims with competent evidence in the record.” (Op. at 32)

  • “Therefore, summary judgment cannot be appropriate on the question of antitrust injury.” (Op. at 33)

  • “There is at least a genuine dispute of material fact concerning whether Keurig’s conduct reduced quality and limited consumer choice or reduced innovation in the single-serve coffee cup market, either of which could separately cause antitrust injury.” (Op. at 36)

On Keurig’s alleged false statements about competing pods. The Court found that there was no evidence to support Keurig’s safety and performance statements about competitors’ pods:

  • “The safety and performance statements, which claimed that non-compatible cups decreased the performance of the 2.0 Brewer and posed threats to user safety, despite not relying on any evidence for either of these propositions, are, in general, literally false . . . I find that Statements 26–27 and 29–32 are literally false.” (Op. at 112)

  • The Court also held that Keurig’s statements denying that competing pods worked with its brewers were literally false once Keurig knew otherwise: “Plaintiffs are correct that they may maintain Lanham Act claims based on literally false statements about lack of compatibility that were disseminated after August of 2014.” (Op. at 111)

Additional Rulings

  • Keurig’s in pari delicto defense is barred. The Court granted plaintiffs summary judgment on this defense, so Keurig cannot use it at trial.

  • Rogers Family Coffee Co.’s damages case goes forward. The Court held that Rogers Family Coffee Co. “may proceed with its ‘Amazon approach’ to calculate damages . . . at trial.” (Op. at 100)

  • California claims survive. Rogers Family Coffee Co.’s state antitrust and false-advertising claims “may proceed to trial to the same extent that Plaintiffs’ Sherman Act and Lanham Act claims may continue.” (Op. at 124)

The ruling also narrowed the case. It removed several theories, including claims based on Keurig’s retail agreements, the 2.0 brewer redesign, and Keurig’s earlier patent lawsuits. What remains is a focused case built on Keurig’s exclusionary contracts, its false statements about competing pods, and the resulting harm to Rogers Family Coffee Co.

Twelve Years in the Making

Rogers Family Coffee Co. filed suit in the Eastern District of California in 2014. The case has spent more than a decade in consolidated pretrial proceedings in New York, and both of the company’s founders died before it could be tried. With summary judgment decided, Rogers has asked that its case be returned to California for trial.

The court’s spoliation action against Keurig further underscores Keurig’s unethical and illegal conduct (Opinion & Order on Jul 31, 2025). For years, Keurig failed to comply with discovery. Judge Broderick sanctioned Keurig for failure to preserve evidence (hard drives, electronic documents)—a spoliation order—and for failing to produce transactional data on a timely basis. Keurig was also ordered by the judge to pay attorney’s fees and other fees for the destruction of evidence.

“For twelve years, Keurig has tried to keep this case from a jury, and on the issues that matter most, it has failed,” said Daniel Johnson Jr. of Dan Johnson Law Group, LLP, counsel for Rogers Family Coffee Co. “A federal judge has now found that Keurig’s warnings about competitors’ coffee pods were literally false, and that a jury must decide whether Keurig held monopoly power, used its contracts to shut out competitors and illegally tied the sale of its brewers and pods. In an earlier ruling the judge found that Keurig had “spoliated” evidence and the jury is entitled to hear that the conduct was willful. Rogers Family Coffee Co. is ready for trial, and we look forward to presenting this evidence to a California jury.”

About Rogers Family Coffee Co.

JBR, Inc., DBA Rogers Family Coffee Co., is a second-generation family-run and owned coffee company headquartered in Lincoln, California, near Sacramento, with a history as one of the early independent makers of single-serve coffee pods compatible with Keurig brewers. Rogers Family Coffee Co. brands include San Francisco Bay Coffee and Organic Coffee Company.

Media gallery

About The Author
Business Wire