Commercial and government fuel purchasers are suing major U.S. shale oil producers, including Diamondback Energy, Occidental Petroleum, and Permian Resources, in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Mexico. They allege the producers coordinated output cuts with OPEC+ and each other to inflate crude and fuel prices. On August 31, 2026, the court largely denied the motions to dismiss, and the case now proceeds to discovery.
Latest development Aug 31, 2026
On August 31, 2026, Judge Matthew L. Garcia largely denied the defendant producers’ motions to dismiss. He rejected their argument that the claims raised a nonjusticiable political question implicating OPEC and U.S. foreign policy. He held that plaintiffs plausibly alleged a domestic conspiracy to restrain shale output.
Why it matters
The case tests whether U.S. producers can face liability under domestic antitrust law for output decisions allegedly coordinated with OPEC+. The answer affects shale producers, purchasers of crude oil and refined fuels, and private antitrust suits over commodity markets tied to foreign policy.
Background
Beginning in January 2024, purchasers of crude oil, gasoline, diesel, and home-heating fuel filed a series of putative class actions against major U.S. shale oil producers. Defendants include Permian Resources Corporation, Diamondback Energy, Inc., Occidental Petroleum Corporation, and Chesapeake Energy Corporation (now Expand Energy Corporation). They also include Continental Resources, Inc., EOG Resources, Inc., Hess Corporation, and Pioneer Natural Resources Company. Former Pioneer chief executive Scott Sheffield and former Hess chief executive John B. Hess are also defendants.
The complaints allege that, after an initial price war with the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC), the producers coordinated with OPEC and among themselves. The alleged aim was to restrain U.S. shale output and keep crude and refined-fuel prices elevated. Plaintiffs claim violations of Section 1 of the Sherman Act and various state antitrust and consumer-protection statutes. The allegations echo, and go further than, complaints the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) brought in the same period. In clearing the ExxonMobil-Pioneer and Chevron-Hess mergers subject to consent orders, the FTC had cited Sheffield’s and Hess’s communications with OPEC officials.
On August 1, 2024, the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation centralized five related actions, then pending in New Mexico and Nevada federal courts, as MDL No. 3119. It assigned the MDL to Judge Matthew L. Garcia of the U.S. District Court for the District of New Mexico. Additional suits followed, including a proposed class action that the City of Baltimore filed in August 2024 as an early government plaintiff. Plaintiffs consolidated their claims into a single amended complaint of 54 counts covering end-payors of crude oil and its refined derivatives nationwide. The defendants moved to dismiss, arguing among other things that the claims raised a nonjusticiable political question involving OPEC and U.S. foreign policy and that no agreement was pleaded.
On August 31, 2026, Judge Garcia denied most of the motions and dismissed only a limited number of state-law claims. He held that the alleged parallel output reductions, combined with market structure, interfirm communications, common institutional ownership, and conduct against the producers’ own economic self-interest, plausibly alleged a domestic conspiracy. He rejected the political-question defense, reasoning that antitrust law can resolve whether domestic companies coordinated production cuts. The case now proceeds to discovery on the surviving federal and state antitrust claims. No court has ruled on the merits, and the defendants continue to deny wrongdoing.
Timeline 5 events
-
OrderJudge Garcia largely denies motions to dismiss
The court held that plaintiffs plausibly alleged a domestic conspiracy to restrain shale output, rejected the producers’ political-question defense, and dismissed only a limited set of state-law claims.
Shale oil companies fail to dismiss US price-fixing caseUS Shale Producers Must Face Oil Price-Fixing Claims, Judge RulesUS Judge Rules Shale Oil Antitrust Case Can Proceed Against Major Producers
-
FilingCity of Baltimore sues shale producers over fuel prices
Baltimore filed a proposed class action in the District of New Mexico, joining the consolidated litigation as an early government plaintiff.
Baltimore alleges in lawsuit that US shale producers fixed fuel prices
-
OrderJPML centralizes shale oil antitrust suits in New Mexico
The U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation consolidated five related actions into MDL No. 3119 before Judge Matthew L. Garcia in the District of New Mexico.
IN RE: SHALE OIL ANTITRUST LITIGATION transfer orderIN RE: SHALE OIL ANTITRUST LITIGATION (2024)
-
OtherFTC cites OPEC communications in clearing Exxon-Pioneer merger
The Federal Trade Commission required a consent order after alleging former Pioneer CEO Scott Sheffield coordinated with OPEC officials, allegations later echoed in the private antitrust suits.
-
FilingFirst class action filed against shale producers over output cuts
Purchasers filed Rosenbaum v. Permian Resources Corp. in the U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada, alleging a conspiracy to restrain shale oil production.
Experimental AI forecast
How it is madeWill any defendant producer reach a publicly disclosed class settlement in MDL No. 3119 by September 30, 2029?
- A producer settles with the purchasers48%
- Still pending on September 30, 202942%
- Claims end with no settlement10%
- Resolves by
- Sep 30, 2029in 36 months
- Record confidence
- Low
Settlement by at least one producer by September 30, 2029, is slightly more likely than not at 48%. The claims survived dismissal on August 31, 2026, and multidefendant antitrust class actions usually produce an early settlement once discovery costs mount. Very large defendants and a novel political-question defense make continued litigation a close alternative.
How it resolves. Resolves “settlement” if, by September 30, 2029, any defendant signs a settlement with the class or state plaintiffs that is filed, announced, or submitted for court approval. Court approval is not required. Resolves “dismissed” if, before any settlement, all claims against all defendants end without one, through dismissal on appeal, summary judgment, trial judgment, or voluntary withdrawal. Resolves “unresolved” if neither has occurred by September 30, 2029.
Reasoning
Starting point. Multidefendant U.S. price-fixing class actions that survived motions to dismiss, time from dismissal ruling to first defendant settlement: Most antitrust class actions that survive dismissal eventually settle, roughly 70% to 80%. At least one defendant often settles within about three years of the dismissal ruling, commonly as an early settlement that trades cooperation for a discount.
Antitrust class actions that survive dismissal settle at high rates, and defendants in multidefendant cases often split off early. The August 31, 2026, ruling upheld the core Sherman Act claim and rejected the political-question defense, so defendants now face costly discovery into communications with OPEC officials. The FTC consent orders give plaintiffs a public evidentiary starting point, which raises settlement pressure on the smaller producers. Against this, several defendants are now part of ExxonMobil and Chevron or are well-capitalized firms that may prefer to fight a theory tied to foreign policy. The ruling took about two years, which suggests a slow docket. Class certification may not be decided before 2029, and many first settlements come around that point. Defendants may also seek interlocutory review of the political-question holding, which could pause the case or end it. That possibility, together with summary judgment on the conspiracy evidence, supports a modest dismissal outcome. The leading alternative is that no defendant settles and the case is still in discovery or class certification briefing on the resolve date. The record contains no scheduling order, so timing is uncertain.
Core Sherman Act claims survived dismissal on August 31, 2026 · Multidefendant structure favors an early settlement by one producer · Deep-pocketed defendants can absorb costs and fight a novel theory · Possible interlocutory appeal of the political-question ruling · Slow docket may push class certification past 2029
Generated automatically by Claude Opus 5.5 on Sep 26, 2026 from this case’s record on this site, and published without editorial review. The probabilities are the model’s judgment, not measured frequencies, and they are scored publicly as cases resolve. Not legal or investment advice. How the forecasts are made