Allegations of monopoly abuse in the single-serve coffee market have led to a new lawsuit targeting one of the industry's largest manufacturers. HBP I, LLC, as assignee of antitrust claims from Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Company (A&P), filed a complaint on May 18, 2026 in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York against Keurig Green Mountain, Inc., Green Mountain Coffee Roasters, Inc., and Keurig, Incorporated.
According to the filing, HBP I, LLC alleges that Keurig has engaged in a multi-faceted scheme to preserve and expand its dominance over both the single-serve brewer market and the compatible cup (K-Cup) market in the United States. The complaint states that "Keurig is a monopolist. It has the power to control price and exclude competition. It has done both and is continuing to do so." The plaintiff asserts that these actions resulted in A&P and its assignor C&S Wholesale Grocers paying artificially high prices for K-Cups during what is described as the "Damages Period," which spans from at least September 7, 2010 through December 31, 2015.
The lawsuit details several practices allegedly used by Keurig to maintain its market position after key patents expired in September 2012. These include blocking online sales by independent distributors; acquiring potential competitors such as Tully’s Coffee Corporation (2009), Timothy’s Coffees of the World (2009), Diedrich Coffee (2010), and LNH Holdings/Van Houtte (2010); initiating what are described as "sham litigation" efforts against companies like Sturm Foods and JBR Inc.; entering into exclusive dealing arrangements with suppliers, distributors, retailers, and machine manufacturers; disparaging competitor products; and introducing technological changes such as lockout features in its "2.0 K-Cup Brewer" designed to prevent use of non-Keurig compatible cups.
The complaint reports that Keurig controls over 90% of the single-serve brewer market and roughly 95% of the compatible cup market in the United States. It further alleges that this dominance was not achieved through business skill or innovation but rather through exclusionary tactics intended to stifle competition: "Keurig’s market and monopoly power...results from a multi-dimensional anticompetitive scheme to monopolize these markets and otherwise unlawfully restrain trade." Specific accusations include coercing distributors into long-term contracts that limit access for competitors, restricting price advertising by resellers, offering brewers at or below cost while charging high prices for K-Cups, disseminating misleading statements about rival products’ quality or compatibility, and leveraging exclusive agreements with major brands such as Starbucks and Smucker.
Plaintiff HBP I LLC traces its standing to pursue these claims through a series of assignments originating with A&P’s bankruptcy proceedings. As stated in court documents: "On or about July 19, 2015...A&P filed voluntary petitions for relief under chapter 11...On or about May 14, 2021...the Debtors transferred certain assets...including any right...to claims...held by A&P in any antitrust litigation." Through subsequent transfers among investment funds—culminating with an assignment from Haybeach Special Opportunities Fund—HBP I LLC now holds these rights.
The legal basis for the suit includes alleged violations of Sections 1 and 2 of the Sherman Antitrust Act (15 U.S.C. §§1–2) as well as Sections 3, 4, and 16 of the Clayton Act (15 U.S.C. §§14–16). The plaintiff seeks damages—including treble damages—as well as declaratory relief aimed at preventing further violations: "This action arises...to prevent and restrain violations of Sections | and 2 of the Sherman Act...and Section 3 of the Clayton Act...and under Section 4...to compensate Plaintiff for its damages including treble damages." Venue is asserted based on Keurig's substantial business presence within New York.
Among additional factual allegations are references to prior lawsuits involving distribution restrictions imposed on internet sellers; details regarding exclusive licensing agreements with national brands; high barriers to entry due to patents; exclusionary agreements affecting supply chains; aggressive acquisition strategies; documented price increases without loss of market share; as well as admissions by company executives regarding their share of both brewer sales (at least 88%) and compatible cup sales (as high as 95%).
The case is identified as Civil Action No. 26-2962 before the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York. Attorney names are not specified within this portion of court filings.
Source: 126cv02962_HBP_I_LLC_v_Keurig_Green_Mountain_Inc_Complaint_Eastern_District_New_York.pdf