Monopolistic practices In 1976, the
European Commission held that United Brands had been
abusing a dominant market position, contrary to Article 86 of the
EEC Treaty; in particular, by imposing unfair conditions on its customers, by refusing to supply certain customers, and by charging dissimilar prices for equivalent transactions. In 1978, the commission's decision was upheld by the
European Court of Justice.
Cincinnati Enquirer charges On 3 May 1998,
The Cincinnati Enquirer published an eighteen-page section, "Chiquita Secrets Revealed" by investigative reporters
Michael Gallagher and
Cameron McWhirter. The section accused the company of mistreating workers on its
Central American plantations, polluting the environment, allowing
cocaine to be brought to Borneo on its ships, bribing foreign officials, evading foreign nations' laws on land ownership, forcibly preventing its workers from unionizing, and a host of other misdeeds. Chiquita denied all the allegations, and sued after it was revealed that Gallagher had repeatedly hacked into Chiquita's
voicemail system. A special prosecutor was appointed to investigate, because the elected prosecutor at the time had ties to
Carl Lindner Jr. Gallagher had claimed to have obtained over 2,000 voicemails from a Chiquita executive, but in truth he had obtained them by hacking into Chiquita's voicemail system as often as 35 times a day. He had continued hacking into the system despite being explicitly directed not to do so by editors and lawyers. According to McWhirter, he also refused to give straight answers about his source to editors and outside lawyers–facts that aroused the suspicions of McWhirter and other reporters. Six weeks after the stories ran, Gannett reached a settlement with Chiquita, averting a lawsuit. Under the terms of the settlement, on 28 June 1998, the
Enquirer retracted the entire series of stories and published a front-page apology saying it had "become convinced that [the published] accusations and conclusions are untrue and created a false and misleading impression of Chiquita's business practices". The
Enquirer also agreed to pay a multi-million-
dollar settlement. The exact amount was not disclosed, but Chiquita's annual report mentions "a cash settlement in excess of $10 million". Gallagher was fired and prosecuted and the paper's editor,
Lawrence K. Beaupre, was transferred to the Gannett's headquarters amid allegations that he ignored the paper's usual procedures on fact-checking. In an article examining the Chiquita series, Salon.com said the "Chiquita Secrets Revealed" series "presents a damning, carefully documented array of charges, most of them 'untainted' by those purloined executive voice mails."
Payments to terrorist groups In the 1990s and early 2000s, faced with an unstable political situation in Colombia, Chiquita and several other corporations including the
Dole Food Company,
Fresh Del Monte Produce and
Hyundai Motor Corporation made payments to paramilitary organizations in the country, most notably the
United Self-Defense Forces of Colombia (AUC). Chiquita paid the AUC $1.7 million in a ten-year period. Although official accounts from the company state they only made these payments as the AUC was extorting payments from Chiquita in order to ensure their security, these claims are disputed as Chiquita also allowed AUC to use their loading facilities to transport
AK-47s. Chiquita's United States counsel had warned them against using this extortion defense in cases where the company benefitted from these payments, and the company's lawyer reportedly told them to stop making the payments. they still sent over $300,000 to the organization even after the Justice Department instructed them to halt all payments. All three of these groups are on the U.S. State Department's list of
Foreign Terrorist Organizations. Chiquita sued to prevent the United States government from releasing files about their illegal payments to Colombian left-wing guerrillas and right-wing paramilitary groups. On 7 December 2007, the 29th Specialized District Attorney's Office in Medellín, Colombia subpoenaed the Chiquita board to answer questions "concerning charges for conspiracy to commit an aggravated crime and financing illegal armed groups". Nine board members named in the subpoena allegedly personally knew of the illegal operations. One executive for the company penned a note which proclaimed that the payments were the "cost of doing business in Colombia" and also noted the "need to keep this very confidential – people can get killed." In 2013 and 2014, Chiquita spent $780,000 lobbying against the
Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism Act, hiring lobbyists from
Covington and Burling, a high-powered
white shoe law firm. On 24 July 2014, a US appeals court threw out a lawsuit against Chiquita by 4,000 Colombians alleging that the corporation was aiding the right-wing paramilitary group responsible for the deaths of family members. The court ruled 2-1 that US federal courts have no jurisdiction over Colombian claims. In 2016, Judge
Kenneth Marra of the
Southern District of Florida ruled in favor of allowing Colombians to sue former Chiquita Brand International executives for the company's funding of the outlawed right-wing paramilitary organization that murdered their family members. He stated in his decision that “'profits took priority over basic human welfare' in the banana company executives' decision to finance the illegal death squads, despite knowing that this would advance the paramilitaries' murderous campaign." In February 2018, an agreement between Chiquita and the families of the victims had been reached. Information about who was behind the Chiquita payments to terrorist groups was made available by the
National Security Archive, a nongovernmental research organization, in a series of document releases related to Chiquita's operations. In 2018, Colombia's Office of the Attorney General filed charges against 13 Chiquita Brands International executives and administrators after tracing payments made by a local Chiquita affiliate to the paramilitary group
AUC, some of which was used to buy machine guns. In June 2024, a federal jury in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida found Chiquita liable for the killing of eight Colombians by the right wing paramilitary group
United Self-Defense Forces of Colombia. The jury verdict also ordered the company to pay $38.3 million to family members of the victims. The case is
In Re: Chiquita Brands International, Inc., Alien Tort Statute and Shareholders Derivative Litigation (0:08-md-01916), presided by Judge
Kenneth Marra. On 23 July 2025, the 6th Criminal Court of the Specialized Circuit of Antioquia sentenced 7 former Chiquita executives to 135 months in prison, and a fine of
COP$13.876 billion, for financing the UAC in the
Urabá region of Colombia.
Workers' rights A recurrent issue in agricultural large-scale production are workers' rights violations, in which Chiquita has been involved as well. In May 2007, the French
non-governmental organization (NGO)
Peuples Solidaires (
fr) publicly accused the Compañia Bananera Atlántica Limitada (COBAL), a Chiquita subsidiary, of knowingly violating "its workers' basic rights" and endangering their families' health and their own. According to the charge, the banana firm carelessly exposed laborers at the Coyol plantation in
Costa Rica to highly toxic pesticides on multiple occasions. Additionally, COBAL was accused of using a private militia to intimidate workers. Finally, Peuples Solidaires claimed that Chiquita ignored some union complaints for more than a year. Another, more recent case of exploitative working conditions dates from April 2019. The Swiss magazine
Beobachter publicised severe labour rights issues on Ecuador's banana plantations, some of which supply Chiquita. These violations involve 12-hour workdays, poverty wages and employment without contracts. In May 2025, banana workers in
Panama went on
strike, protesting several issues, including changes to pensions. In June 2025, Chiquita fired all employees in the country.
Environmental issues In 1998, a coalition of social activist groups, led by the European Banana Action Network (EUROBAN), targeted the
banana industry in general and Chiquita in particular, aiming to create a new climate of
corporate social responsibility. Their strategy was to encourage
small farming of bananas rather than
large scale monoculture, and to push for subsidies and other government relief to level the field for small producers. The
fair trade movement, which sought to influence consumers to purchase the products of smallholders, also joined in the action. Chiquita responded to the activism with changes in corporate management and new patterns of global competition, according to J. Gary Taylor and Patricia Scharlin. Chiquita partnered with the
Rainforest Alliance, an environmental group dedicated to preserving the rainforest, and made major reforms in the way they plant and protect their bananas. The changes focused on the use of pesticides but also affected corporate culture. on pesticide use on banana plantations in Ecuador, some of which supply Chiquita. They found aerial spraying of pesticides without warnings to workers, and the handling of pesticides without proper protections or equipment. Among the pesticides sprayed is
Paraquat, a highly hazardous pesticide forbidden in Switzerland and the EU. When approached for comment, Chiquita would neither confirm nor deny the allegations, but reportedly began an internal investigation, the results of which have not been made public. == In popular culture ==