Australia’s competition watchdog has brought a civil case against Sunny Queen and 11 other companies, alleging that coordination among major egg suppliers reduced the rivalry that should have governed production and sales.
The Federal Court filing was lodged on October 13 and accepted that morning. It alleges conduct stretching back to at least October 2020, including shared production plans, coordinated reductions during perceived oversupply and restrictions on sales to retailers.
The Australian Competition and Consumer Commission says the case is its first to plead the statutory prohibition on concerted practices, introduced in 2017. That prohibition reaches cooperation beyond independent responses to market conditions without requiring every element of a formal understanding.
Its sealed concise statement describes how the Hall and McLean producer groups allegedly used their jointly owned Sunny Queen business as a common channel for marketing eggs. The regulator says they exchanged forward capacity information, allocated opportunities to grow and shared reductions in output.
Separate allegations concern Kinross, a supplier outside that ownership arrangement. According to the filing, a 2020 agreement limited its outside sales and barred supplies to several major supermarket customers. A revised agreement in 2023 removed wider restrictions but retained a prohibition on supplying Coles, the ACCC alleges.
The regulator also challenges the acquisition of a Queensland property, saying it was intended to prevent a rival supplier buying the site. Its claims invoke cartel provisions, exclusive-dealing rules and restrictions on acquisitions that substantially lessen competition.
Sunny Queen denied the allegations in a statement issued the same day and said it would defend the proceedings. It said it had cooperated with the investigation and would continue supplying customers while the case proceeds.
The ACCC seeks declarations, financial penalties, injunctions and other orders. Those requests are relief sought by the applicant, not penalties already imposed. The companies’ liability remains for the court to determine in case VID1229/2026.
The allegations span free-range, cage and organic eggs. They describe claimed interference with ordinary commercial choices—how much to produce, where to expand and whom to supply—rather than establishing that every price rise or shortage in the market resulted from collusion.
Court-sealed concise statement
