Corteva Will Pay 12 States $35 Million and Scrap the Pesticide Loyalty Rebates the FTC Calls “Pay-to-Block” — but That Deal Has No Claim Form for Farmers. Their Own $85 Million Class Settlement Went to the Judge in June — and We Found No Ruling and No Claim Form.

No. The Corteva settlement announced on September 28, 2026 pays $35 million to 12 states, not to farmers, and nobody files anything to be part of it. In the FTC’s words, the order “requires Corteva to pay the state plaintiffs $35,000,000 to resolve their monetary claims.” None of the six announcements we read, from the FTC and from Iowa, Colorado, California, Washington and Illinois, mentions a claim form or a payment process for farmers.

Farmers could still see some of that money, but only if their own state chooses to send it. The stipulated order lists seven ways the attorneys general may use the payment “in their sole discretion.” One of them is “for distribution to farmers as deemed appropriate by any State’s Attorney General, including for a restitutionary purpose.” The others include attorneys’ fees and expenses, antitrust and consumer-protection funds, “programs, initiatives, or grants designed to promote the welfare of agricultural producers,” and “any other purpose.” No state we read has said it will pay farmers directly. Colorado says the $35 million is “to cover their fees and costs.”

The states are California, Colorado, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Minnesota, Nebraska, Oregon, Tennessee, Texas, Washington and Wisconsin. The deal is not final yet. The FTC notes that stipulated orders “have the force of law when approved and signed by the District Court judge,” and the parties filed it on Friday, September 25. Once the judge signs it, Corteva has 30 calendar days to pay, provided the states have sent their payment instructions in time. The money farmers can actually file for is a different case: a $85 million class settlement, covered below. It has not opened for claims.

The order leaves the split to the states: Corteva pays “pursuant to an allocation to be provided to Corteva by the Plaintiff States,” and has “no responsibility or influence” over it. Only two of the 12 states have published a figure in the announcements we read. Iowa says it “will receive approximately $2.4 million.” Colorado puts its “anticipated share” at “approximately $300,000.” California, Washington and Illinois announced the settlement without naming a state share.

Split evenly, $35 million would be about $2.92 million per state. Iowa’s $2.4 million is about 6.9% of the total and Colorado’s about 0.9%. Together those two come to about $2.7 million, which leaves roughly $32.3 million for the other ten states, whose shares we did not find (all our arithmetic); we did not read the releases of the seven states other than California, Washington and Illinois. No release we read explains why Iowa receives about eight times what Colorado does.

The $35 million also closes out the states’ money claims. Under the order, the payment is “deemed to satisfy completely” their claims under state competition and consumer-protection laws, “including those for a civil penalty, damages, or disgorgement.” Corteva admits nothing. The order “does not constitute an admission by Corteva that the acts alleged in the Amended Complaint are true.”

When people search for a Corteva class action, this is the case they usually mean: In re Crop Protection Products Loyalty Program Antitrust Litigation, No. 1:23-md-03062 (M.D.N.C.). The farmers’ group lawsuit is before the same judge, Thomas D. Schroeder. Interim co-lead class counsel Cohen Milstein describes the plaintiffs as “farmers based in more than 25 states.” The proposed class in their complaint covers people and businesses in the U.S. who, from October 27, 2018 on, bought a Corteva or Syngenta product containing one of the challenged active ingredients. The purchase had to be made either directly from the manufacturer or “directly from a distributor or retailer that entered into a loyalty program agreement.” For Corteva, the complaint names four ingredients: rimsulfuron, oxamyl, acetochlor and methoxyfenozide. Products it names include LeadOff, Vydate, FulTime, Intrepid Edge, Matrix SG, Realm-Q, Basis and Resolve-Q.

On June 10, 2026, the farmers asked the court to preliminarily approve an unopposed $85 million settlement with Corteva alone (Documents 421 and 422). In the motion, quoted on Cohen Milstein’s website, class counsel call it “approximately 10% of the total damages plaintiffs’ expert calculated were caused by Corteva’s alleged misconduct.” In their class certification motions, the farmers had sought $883 million from Corteva, so $85 million is about 9.6% of that (our arithmetic). Iowa’s attorney general describes it as a class settlement “brought by over 100,000 farmers” and dates it to July 2026; the motion was filed on June 10. DTN reported, based on the motion, that the settlement class covers purchases of products containing those four ingredients from October 2018 through May 2026. Spread across 100,000 farmers, $85 million averages at most $850 each before attorneys’ fees and costs (our arithmetic). The documents we could read do not say how the money would be divided.

There is nothing to file yet. On June 11, the 12 states asked the court “not [to] rule on the plaintiffs’ motions until it has had time to consider the States’ position” (Document 424). The motion went to Judge Schroeder on June 18. The public docket we checked on CourtListener shows no ruling through its latest entry, dated August 25, 2026. That is a mirror of the court record, not PACER itself. In their own September 25 order, the states agreed they “will not challenge or contest the validity” of the farmers’ settlement. They added that a fight over “the allocation of the underlying Settlement Agreement proceeds” would not count as such a challenge. We found no settlement website, no court-approved notice and no claim form. Until the court rules, be wary of anyone asking for payment or personal details to “register” you. Corteva’s July 31 quarterly report also lists a separate settlement with Arkansas, which is subject to state-court approval. The report does not give its amount.

For dealers and distributors, the order changes how Corteva can pay rebates. According to California, the lawsuit alleged the programs “required distributors to purchase 90% or more of their annual supply of certain active ingredients.” For 10 years, Corteva may not tie payments or other benefits to a customer buying more than 50% of its needs for an active ingredient from Corteva. It also may not cap a customer’s generic purchases below 50%, rebuild the same program on a volume basis, or “discriminat[e] against or threaten[] customers” who buy from generic makers. The rules apply to all of Corteva’s off-patent ingredients, not only the three named in the FTC’s complaint.

There is a transition rule for rebates already earned. Corteva may pay those only for the “Market Year ending September 30, 2026,” and only if they do not require the customer to meet a share above 50% to qualify. Within 30 days after the judge signs the order, Corteva must post an “Antitrust Compliance” notice on its website for three years. It must also send a letter and a copy of the order to customers that took part in the programs. The notice gives FTCOrderCompliance@Corteva.com and 1-800-992-5994 as contacts for questions about how the order applies to you. The FTC takes compliance concerns at bccompliance@ftc.gov.

Syngenta has not settled either case. On the FTC’s case page, FTC v. Syngenta Crop Protection AG (No. 1:22-cv-00828) is still listed as “Pending.” On July 30, 2026, Judge Schroeder heard Syngenta’s summary judgment motion, the plaintiffs’ renewed motion to set a trial date and motions to exclude expert testimony, and took them “under advisement.” According to Iowa, “no trial date has been scheduled.” In the farmers’ case, the class certification motion against Syngenta was submitted to the judge on June 18. Its ingredients there are azoxystrobin, mesotrione, metolachlor, fomesafen and lambda-cyhalothrin.

The settlement also obliges Corteva to help the plaintiffs in their continuing litigation. Corteva may not object to subpoenas for trial testimony from “up to three” of its officers, employees or corporate representatives on the ground that the subpoenas are too burdensome for a third party. It must also use “reasonable best efforts” to make former employees available and help authenticate documents. Counting both announced deals, Corteva has agreed to pay $120 million: $35 million to the states and $85 million to the farmers’ class, not counting the undisclosed Arkansas amount (our arithmetic). We will update this page when the court signs the state order or rules on the $85 million settlement.