Collusion and Price-Fixing
The plaintiffs in this lawsuit allege that the defendents, including SONY, LG, Hitachi, Maxell and NEC, conspired to raise and fix the prices of cylindrical Li-Ion Cells for over ten years, resulting in overcharges to indirect purchasers of portable computers, camcorders, and power tools containing Li-Ion Cylindrical Batteries.
This class action lawsuit alleges that Heritage Pharmaceuticals conspired to raise prices of glyburide and made illegal agreements with co-conspirator manufactures to allocate customers in the glyburide market.
The plaintiffs in this lawsuit allege that Home City Ice Company and other competitors engaged in an antitrust scheme to fix and raise the price of packaged bags of ice.
This class action lawsuit claims that Qualcomm maintained a monopoly in baseband processors by engaging in illegal patent, contract, licensing, and dealing practices.
The plaintiffs in this lawsuit allege that Dow unlawfully agreed to fix, raise, maintain or stabilize the prices of Polyether Polyol Products sold in the United States and its territories during the period from January 1, 1999 through December 31, 2004 in violation of the federal antitrust laws.
This lawsuit claims that Fougera engaged in a conspiracy to fix, raise, maintain, and stabilize the prices of their Econazole antifungal cream by making agreements with generic manufacturers to keep prices high.
An ongoing legal investigation is questioning the practices of many lab companies and their charging practices. Many insurance companies have agreements with labs that they will only be charged a discounted rate for medical lab fees. Consumers that do not have insurance or who’s insurance is denied do not have this advantage and often pay a much higher price for the same testing.
This lawsuit alleges that 1-800 Contacts engaged in price fixing and collusion by preventing online competition in the market for contact-lenses. This was done by entering into agreements with competitors that restricted bidding on advertising on Google by keywords and forcing competitors to advertise based on “negative” key words. These actions violate the Sherman Antitrust Act, California’s Cartwright Act, and California’s Unfair Competition Law.
The plaintiffs in this lawsuit allege that since 2002, UPMC and Highmark have participated in a conspiracy to reduce competition in the markets for health insurance and certain health care services in Western Pennsylvania in violation of federal antitrust laws. The lawsuit claims this behavior:
The plaintiffs in this lawsuit allege that the companies (listed below) conspired, in violation of antitrust laws, to fix the prices for freight forwarding services during certain time periods. The Plaintiffs claim that the companies’ conspiracies were worldwide, including on shipping routes between the United States and China, Hong Kong, Japan, Taiwan, and the United Kingdom.