FTC and Plaintiff States v. Amgen, No. 23-CV-3053 (N.D. Ill. 06/22/23)
Plaintiff states joined the Federal Trade Commission’s suit against Amgen’s planned $28 billion purchase of Horizon Therapeutics. The plaintiffs sought a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction blocking Amgen Inc. and its subsidiaries from completing the proposed acquisition. Horizon Therapeutics PLC makes the only U.S. FDA-approved treatment for thyroid eye disease, Tepezza, and the only FDA-approved…
Washington v. Tyson Foods, Inc., No. 21-2-14174-5 (Wash. Super. Ct. King Cty. 2022)
Plaintiff state filed a lawsuit against 19 chicken producers accusing them of a wide-ranging illegal conspiracy to inflate and manipulate prices, rig contract bids and coordinate industry supply reductions to maximize profits. The defendants account for approximately 95 percent of the broiler chickens sold in the United States. The complaint asserts their conduct violates the…
Washington v. Amazon.com, Inc., No. 22-2-01281-1 (Wash. Super. Ct. King Cty. Jan. 26, 2022)
Washington filed a complaint and settlement with Amazon, resolving claims that Amazon’s “Sold by Amazon” program , which allowed Amazon to agree on price with third-party sellers, rather than compete with them, violated antitrust laws. The state alleged that Amazon unreasonably restrained competition in order to maximize its own profits off third-party sales, which constituted…
Settlement Agreement Between Plaintiff States and Citibank (June 2018)
Forty-two plaintiff states reached a $100 million settlement with Citibank for fraudulent conduct involving interest rate manipulation that had a significant impact on consumers and financial markets around the world. UBS’ fraudulent conduct involved the manipulation of LIBOR (the London Interbank Offered Rate). LIBOR is a benchmark interest rate that affects financial instruments worth trillions…
Utah et al. v. Google LLC, No. 3:21-cv-05227 (N.D. Cal. July 7, 2021)
Thirty-seven states filed a lawsuit against Google for monopolizing the smartphone application market in violation of state and federal antitrust laws. According to the complaint, Google operates a web of exclusionary agreements with phone manufacturers and carriers to exert control over app distribution on Android phones through its Google Play Store. By leveraging those anticompetitive…
In re: Franchise No Poaching Provisions, King Cty. Super Ct., Wash. 2019
The Attorney General of Washington has entered into a series of agreements with 75 national chains who included so-called “no-poach” provisions in their franchise agreements. No-poach clauses appear in franchise agreements between owners of franchises and corporate headquarters. The clauses prohibit employees from moving among stores in the same corporate chain, a practice that economists…
Alabama et al. v. Endo International, No. 3:19-cv-04157 (N.D. Cal. July 19, 2019)
Eighteen states reached a settlement with Endo Pharmaceuticals Inc. under which Endo paid $2.3 million to settle allegations it entered into a reverse-payment agreement to obstruct generic competition to Lidoderm, a pain relief patch frequently used to treat shingles. According to the complaint, Endo had an agreement with Watson Laboratories Inc. ensuring Endo would not face…
Washington v. Starkist Company, No. 20-2-09491-9 (Wash. Super. Ct. King Cty. June 2, 2020)
Plaintiff state filed a civil lawsuit against Starkist, one of the world’s largest canned tuna manufacturers and the former CEO of Bumble Bee Foods, another large tuna manufacturer, over a price-fixing conspiracy that drove up the cost of packaged tuna for more than a decade. The suit alleged that StarKist Co., its parent company Dongwon,…
Washington v. LG Electronics (Samsung settlement), No. 12-2-15842 (King Cty Super. Ct., Wash. June 14, 2018
The state alleged that Samsung participated in an unlawful conspiracy with other CRT manufacturers(including LG, Panasonic, Hitachi, Chungwha, Toshiba and Philips, to raise, fix, maintain, or stabilize the price of Cathode Ray Tubes at artificially high levels and to maintain the quantities of CRTs at artificially low levels, in violation of Washington’s consumer protection and antitrust statutes. The state alleged this conspiracy continued from 1995 to 2007.The lawsuit alleges Samsung representatives attended secret meetings with other companies, known internally as “glass meetings,†in which they agreed to fix prices of CRTs. For example, the companies agreed to artificially restrict supply to keep prices high and share information with competitors regarding capacity, production, prices and customer demands for CRTs.According to the lawsuit, conspirators split the glass meetings into three tiers: “top meetings†for high-level company executives, “management meetings†for mid-level managers, and “working-level meetings†for lower-level sales and marketing employees. Samsung attended meetings at all three levels. The lawsuit alleges the companies’ scheme allowed them to keep CRT prices high, even as liquid crystal display, or LCD, screens were introduced to the market. Samsung no longer produces CRTs. Philips agreed to pay $7 million to recompense Washington consumers.
Washington v. LG Electronics (Philips settlement), No. 12-2-15842 (King Cty Super. Ct., Wash. June 14, 2018
The state alleged that Philips participated in an unlawful conspiracy with other CRT manufacturers(including LG< Panasonic, Hitachi, Chungwha, Toshiba and Samsung, to raise, fix, maintain, or stabilize the price of Cathode Ray Tubes at artificially high levels and to maintain the quantities of CRTs at artificially low levels, in violation of Washington's consumer protection and antitrust statutes. The state alleged this conspiracy continued from 1995 to 2007.The lawsuit alleges Philips representatives attended secret meetings with other companies, known internally as "glass meetings,†in which they agreed to fix prices of CRTs. For example, the companies agreed to artificially restrict supply to keep prices high and share information with competitors regarding capacity, production, prices and customer demands for CRTs.According to the lawsuit, conspirators split the glass meetings into three tiers: "top meetings†for high-level company executives, "management meetings†for mid-level managers, and "working-level meetings†for lower-level sales and marketing employees. Philips attended meetings at all three levels. The lawsuit alleges the companies' scheme allowed them to keep CRT prices high, even as liquid crystal display, or LCD, screens were introduced to the market. Philips no longer produces CRTs. Philips agreed to pay $7 million to recompense Washington consumers.
