Skip to content Skip to navigation

Antitrust

General Electric Gas Anesthesia Machine

This complaint alleges General Electric and subsidiaries have conspired to block competition for the servicing of GE’s gas anesthesia machines. It brings suit under the Sherman antitrust laws—not on behalf of the those so blocked, but on behalf of those who must pay higher prices to have their machines serviced.

Company Cars Lined Up in Lot at CIS

Can two companies, a law firm, and a few individuals restrain trade in the security guard industry in a state? The complaint for this class action alleges that Critical Intervention Services, Inc. (CIS), the KPP Security Group (KPP), the Solomon Law Group, PA, and four people did exactly that. It alleges that the companies “entered customer allocation and no-poaching or no-hiring agreements with competing private security companies throughout Florida and beyond.” The complaint claims violations of the Sherman Act.

Different Kinds of Viega Press Pipe Fittings

Can a single company enforce a monopoly in a market, even if other manufacturers sell similar goods at lower prices? The complaint for this class action alleges that Viega, LLC used its exclusive position with one kind of pipe fitting to prevent customers from buying other kinds from competitors. 

Comcast Set-Top Box and Remote

Comcast Corporation, Comcast Holdings Corporation, Comcast Cable Communications, LLC, and Comcast Cable Communications Holdings, Inc. are settling a class action for $15.5 million.

Ranbaxy Building

The complaint for this class action alleges that Ranbaxy Laboratories, Ltd. took advantage of Food and Drug Administration (FDA) rules on approvals for generic drugs. The complaint says it claimed first-to-file rights for generics of popular drugs even when it had not yet sufficiently developed the generics, in order to block others from doing so. The complaint claims violations of antitrust and anti-racketeering (RICO) laws.

H&R Block Logo

H&R Block has over 10,000 of its own offices, in the US and elsewhere, plus 3,300 franchises across the US. The complaint for this class action alleges that the company does not permit its various corporate-owned offices and franchises to compete with each other for employees. Such no-poach agreements violate antitrust laws. 

Example of Bond Certificate

At times, government-sponsored enterprises (GSEs) issue bonds to fund what the complaint for this class action calls “economic and public policy mandates.” The complaint for this class action claims that dealers in these bonds conspired to fix their prices in a way that would earn the dealers more money, in violation of antitrust laws.

Children's Toys

The US permits au pairs to live and work in the US on J-1 visas. This lawsuit claims that the sponsors of the programs misrepresented that the au pair stipend was a fixed amount of $195.75 per week when in actuality that was a minimum amount. The complaint claims that the misrepresentation violated federal, state, and local laws, including antitrust laws on fixing wages.

Arby's Sandwich with Meat and Cheese on a Bum

This is another among many antitrust class actions being brought against fast food companies for the no-poach clauses in their franchise agreements. As in other cases, the complaint alleges that the clauses are anticompetitive and keep wages low.

H&R Block Green Square Logo

Fast food outlets apparently aren’t the only businesses that put no-poach provisions into their franchise agreements. The complaint for this class action brings this antitrust case claiming that H&R Block, Inc. and H&R Block Tax Services, LLC also engaged in this anticompetitive practice.

Pages