U.S. Code » Title 7 » Chapter CHAPTER 9— PACKERS AND STOCKYARDS › Subchapter SUBCHAPTER II— PACKERS GENERALLY › Part Part A— General Provisions

7 U.S.C. § 192

Unlawful practices enumerated

Read at: OLRCuscode.house.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov JustiaTitle 7 CasesGoogle Scholar
It shall be unlawful for any packer or swine contractor with respect to livestock, meats, meat food products, or livestock products in unmanufactured form, or for any live poultry dealer with respect to live poultry, to:(a) Engage in or use any unfair, unjustly discriminatory, or deceptive practice or device; or(b) Make or give any undue or unreasonable preference or advantage to any particular person or locality in any respect, or subject any particular person or locality to any undue or unreasonable prejudice or disadvantage in any respect; or(c) Sell or otherwise transfer to or for any other packer, swine contractor, or any live poultry dealer, or buy or otherwise receive from or for any other packer, swine contractor, or any live poultry dealer, any article for the purpose or with the effect of apportioning the supply between any such persons, if such apportionment has the tendency or effect of restraining commerce or of creating a monopoly; or(d) Sell or otherwise transfer to or for any other person, or buy or otherwise receive from or for any other person, any article for the purpose or with the effect of manipulating or controlling prices, or of creating a monopoly in the acquisition of, buying, selling, or dealing in, any article, or of restraining commerce; or(e) Engage in any course of business or do any act for the purpose or with the effect of manipulating or controlling prices, or of creating a monopoly in the acquisition of, buying, selling, or dealing in, any article, or of restraining commerce; or(f) Conspire, combine, agree, or arrange with any other person (1) to apportion territory for carrying on business, or (2) to apportion purchases or sales of any article, or (3) to manipulate or control prices; or(g) Conspire, combine, agree, or arrange with any other person to do, or aid or abet the doing of, any act made unlawful by subdivisions (a), (b), (c), (d), or (e).(Aug. 15, 1921, ch. 64, title II, § 202, 42 Stat. 161; Aug. 15, 1921, ch. 64, title V, § 503, as added Aug. 14, 1935, ch. 532, 49 Stat. 649; Pub. L. 85–909, § 1(1), Sept. 2, 1958, 72 Stat. 1749; Pub. L. 94–410, § 3(a), Sept. 13, 1976, 90 Stat. 1249; Pub. L. 100–173, § 3, Nov. 23, 1987, 101 Stat. 917; Pub. L. 102–237, title X, § 1008(1), Dec. 13, 1991, 105 Stat. 1898; Pub. L. 106–78, title IX, § 912, Oct. 22, 1999, 113 Stat. 1205; Pub. L. 107–171, title X, § 10502(b)(1), (2)(A), May 13, 2002, 116 Stat. 509, 510.)Amendment of Section

For termination of amendment by section 942 of Pub. L. 106–78, see Termination Date of 1999 Amendment note below.

Editorial NotesAmendments

2002—Pub. L. 107–171, § 10502(b)(1), substituted “packer or swine contractor” for “packer” in introductory provisions.

Subsec. (c). Pub. L. 107–171, § 10502(b)(2)(A), inserted “, swine contractor,” after “other packer” in two places.

1999—Subsec. (b). Pub. L. 106–78, §§ 912, 942, temporarily struck out “whatsoever” after “locality in any respect” and after “disadvantage in any respect”. See Termination Date of 1999 Amendment note below.

1991—Subsec. (c). Pub. L. 102–237 substituted a comma for period after second reference to “dealer”.

1987—Pub. L. 100–173, § 3(1), substituted “for any packer with respect to livestock, meats, meat food products, or livestock products in unmanufactured form, or for any live poultry dealer with respect to live poultry, to” for “with respect to livestock, meats, meat food products, livestock products in unmanufactured form, poultry, or poultry products for any packer or any live poultry dealer or handler to” in introductory provisions.

Par. (c). Pub. L. 100–173, § 3(2), struck out reference to poultry handlers wherever appearing and substituted “such persons” for “such packers”.

1976—Pub. L. 94–410 struck out “in commerce” wherever appearing.

1958—Pub. L. 85–909 inserted “with respect to livestock, meats, meat food products, livestock products in unmanufactured form, poultry, or poultry products” after “unlawful”.

1935—Act Aug. 15, 1921, title V, § 503, as added Aug. 14, 1935, inserted “or any live poultry dealer or handler” after “packer” wherever appearing.

Statutory Notes and Related SubsidiariesTermination Date of 1999 Amendment

Amendment by Pub. L. 106–78 to terminate Mar. 14, 2025, see section 942 of Pub. L. 106–78, set out in a Livestock Mandatory Reporting note under section 1635 of this title.

Effective Date of 1987 Amendment

Amendment by Pub. L. 100–173 effective 90 days after Nov. 23, 1987, see section 12 of Pub. L. 100–173, set out as a note under section 182 of this title.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 102 cases (8 in the last 5 years), 1934–2025 · leading case: Been v. O.K. Indus., Inc., 495 F.3d 1217 (10th Cir. 2007).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Been v. O.K. Indus., Inc., 495 F.3d 1217 (10th Cir. 2007). · cites it 8× “The Growers alleged that OK's conduct constitutes a breach of contract and violates § 202(a) of the PSA, 7 U.S.C. § 192 (a). They also alleged that the broiler contract is unconscionable and therefore unenforceable under state law.”
Cent. Bank of Denver, N. A. v. First Interstate Bank of Denver, N. A., 511 U.S. 164 (1994). · cites it 4× “161 , as amended, 7 U. S. C. § 192 (g) *177 (1988 ed. and Supp.”
Terry v. Tyson Farms, Inc., 604 F.3d 272 (6th Cir. 2010). · cites it 5× “With respect to Terry’s PSA claim, the district court held that proof of injury to competition is a necessary element of a claim under 7 U.S.C. §§ 192 (a) and (b) and, because Terry failed to plead that Tyson’s actions had an adverse effect on competition, this count likewise…”
Org. for Competitive Markets v. U.S. Dep't of Agric., 912 F.3d 455 (8th Cir. 2018). · cites it 2× “" PSA § 202(a) and (b), codified at 7 U.S.C. § 192 (a) and (b). 1 Because "[r]ead literally, [these terms] establish no standard at all," at least six circuits, including this court, have concluded that these provisions concern only those business dealings that have an actual or…”
Harold Bruce London v. Fieldale Farms Corp., 410 F.3d 1295 (11th Cir. 2005). · cites it 4× “7 U.S.C. § 192 (2004). The PSA was enacted in 1921 “to comprehensively regulate packers, stockyards, marketing agents and dealers.”
Schumacher v. Tyson Fresh Meats, Inc., 221 F.R.D. 605 (D.S.D. 2004). · cites it 5× “The PSA inter alia speaks of packers engaging in any unfair practice or device ( 7 U.S.C. § 192 (a)). This speaks in the active sense and would require a finding that packers, had done something that was “unfair.”
Excel Corp. v. United States Dep't of Agric., 397 F.3d 1285 (10th Cir. 2005). · cites it 5× “Petitioner Excel Corporation seeks review of a decision and order issued by respondent United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) finding that Excel violated § 202(a) of the Packers and Stockyards Act (P & S Act), 7 U.S.C. § 192 (a), and an implementing regulation, 9 C.”
Kinkaid v. John Morrell & Co., 321 F. Supp. 2d 1090 (N.D. Iowa 2004). · cites it 5× “The complaints The Producers each filed a Complaint on December 31, 2003, asserting individual and purported class claims of unfair and deceptive practices by the Packing Companies in violation of § 202 of the PSA, 7 U.S.C. § 192 . More specifically, the Producers allege that…”
United States v. Rudolph George Stanko, 491 F.3d 408 (8th Cir. 2007). · cites it 2× “An instructive contrast to the FMIA is the Packers and Stockyards Act (PSA), 7 U.S.C. § 192 . Meatpackers run afoul of the PSA for such offenses as engaging in unfair, unjustly discriminatory or deceptive practices; apportioning supplies if such apportionment has the effect of…”
Henry Lee Leroy Pickett v. Iowa Beef Processors, 420 F.3d 1272 (11th Cir. 2005). · cites it 2× “Packers and Stockyards Act § 202(a), (e), 7 U.S.C. § 192 (a), (e). It is undisputed that Tyson is a meat packer and that the PSA applies to its business.”
United States v. Perdue Farms, Inc. & Franklin P. Perdue, 680 F.2d 277 (2d Cir. 1982). · cites it 4× “Weinstein, United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York, denied Perdue’s motion to dismiss or for summary judgment, ruling that Perdue is a “live poultry dealer” under the Act and that, as such, its sale of slaughtered poultry is covered by § 202 of the Act,…”
Jackson v. Swift-Eckrich, Inc., 836 F. Supp. 1447 (W.D. Ark. 1993). · cites it 6× “Packers and Stockyards Act Violation — Performance Contract Issue A major thrust of plaintiffs’ lawsuit and presentation at the trial involved alleged violations of § 202 of the Packers and Stockyards Act, codified as 7 U.S.C. § 192 . That section provides, in pertinent part, as…”
Show all 102 citing cases →
— 7 U.S.C. § 192(a) — 3 cases
Joe Bell v. Koch Foods of Mississippi, LLC, 358 F. App'x 498 (5th Cir. 2009).
Ibp, Inc. v. Daniel Glickman, Sec'y, U.S. Dep't of Agric. United States Dep't of Agric., 187 F.3d 974 (8th Cir. 1999).
Swift & Co. v. United States of Am. & Orville L. Freeman, Sec'y of Agric., 317 F.2d 53 (7th Cir. 1963).
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.