Texas Settles Cal-Maine Egg Pricing Case

In January 2026, Texas and Cal-Maine Foods, Inc. (and Wharton County Foods, LLC) announced that it resolved their egg pricing case through an agreed final judgment and injunction. The agreed order includes a ten-year injunction tied to disaster period egg pricing, recordkeeping and compliance measures, and a requirement to donate 180,000 dozen large eggs to specified Texas food banks within 120 days of the effective date. The order states it is not an admission or concession of liability or wrongdoing.

Texas filed the lawsuit in April 2020, alleging Cal-Maine violated the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices Consumer Protection Act (DTPA) based on egg pricing during the early months of the COVID 19 pandemic.

How the State Sees It

Texas framed the case around a straightforward consumer protection theory: during a governor declared disaster, companies cannot take advantage of the moment by offering, demanding, or selling necessities at an “exorbitant or excessive” price.

In the petition, Texas alleged three core points:

• Disaster period pricing spike. Texas alleged that after the March 13, 2020 statewide disaster declaration (renewed April 12, 2020), egg prices jumped sharply, including allegations that prices reached about $3 per dozen compared to about 94 cents earlier in March, and that generic egg pricing rose to $3.18 in March 2020.
• Why the State said the price was “excessive.” Texas alleged Cal-Maine’s facilities were fully operational with no supply chain or delivery disruptions, and alleged “nothing has happened” that would justify generic eggs costing more than specialty eggs, among other points offered to support the “exorbitant or excessive” theory.
• Price explanation messaging. Texas also alleged Cal-Maine made misleading statements suggesting wholesale egg market prices were outside its control and alleged the company’s statements implied a regulated market exchange for egg pricing when, according to the petition, no such exchange exists.

Conclusion

What stands out in this petition is that Texas did not just focus on the numbers, it focused on the narrative that went with the numbers. The State alleged Cal-Maine’s public explanations about price drivers were misleading and treated those statements as part of the case.

Two practical takeaways for in house teams:

• Assume pricing explanations will be read as evidence. If you say prices were outside your control or tied to market pricing concepts, make sure you can support the statement and that it matches how pricing decisions were actually made.
• Make the message durable under scrutiny. The cleanest approach is usually a simple explanation that is consistent across channels and anchored to what the company can document.

When these issues surface, our team helps companies pressure test pricing related messaging so it is accurate, supportable, and less likely to invite skepticism from state enforcers. Reach out to us by email for more information on how we can help.

This communication is not intended to create or constitute, nor does it create or constitute, an attorney-client or any other legal relationship. No statement in this communication constitutes legal advice nor should any communication herein be construed, relied upon, or interpreted as legal advice. This communication is for general information purposes only regarding recent legal developments of interest, and is not a substitute for legal counsel on any subject matter. No reader should act or refrain from acting on the basis of any information included herein without seeking appropriate legal advice on the particular facts and circumstances affecting that reader. For more information, visit www.buchalter.com.