Hawaii v. Standard Oil Co., 405 U.S. 251, 265 (1972)
Attorney general has common law power to bring antitrust action
Alfred Snapp and Son, Inc. v. Puerto Rico, 458 U.S. 592 (1982)
To pursue a claim as parens patriae for its citizens, the Supreme Court held that “The state must demonstrate (1) a quasi-sovereign interest and (2) “more . . . than injury to an identifiable group of individual residents.” The requisite quasi-sovereign interest may lie in the state’s interest in the physical and economic health and…
Alaska Sport Fishing Ass’n v. Exxon Corp., 34 F.3d 769 (9th Cir. 1994)
State filed parens actions pursuant to environmental law for damages from Exxon Valdez oil spill. Private plaintiffs challenged the state and federal governments’ claims, arguing that they should be able to recover damages for loss of use, while the government recovers damages for remediation. Court held that there was no intention in the statute to…
Hood v. Microsoft Corp., 428 F.Supp.2d 537 (S.D. Miss. 2006)
The Attorney General of Mississippi filed suit in state court against Microsoft, alleging monopolization by the company which resulted in damages to the state as purchaser and also representing Mississippi customers as parens patriae. Microsoft sought removal to federal district court on the grounds of diversity, arguing that with respect to the parens claims, the…
Hood v. Microsoft Corp., 428 F.Supp.2d 537, 546 (S.D. Miss. 2006)
The attorney general of Mississippi brought parens patriae antitrust claims. The federal court held, “This type of prospective relief goes beyond addressing the claims of previously injured organizations or individuals. It is aimed at securing an honest marketplace, promoting proper business practices, protecting Mississippi consumers, and advancing Mississippi’s interest in the economic well-being of its…
Farmers Group Inc. v. Lubin, 222 S.W. 3d 417 (Texas 2007)
The Attorney General of Texas entered into a class action settlement with a group of insurance companies over inadequate disclosures and discrimination in homeowners’ rating practices that allegedly violated the state’s Insurance Code. The court of appeals reversed, holding the Attorney General could not bring a class action under the Insurance Code without naming individual…
Colorado v. Warner Chilcott Holdings, No. 05-2182 (CKK), Magistrate Memorandum Order (D.D.C. May 8, 2007).
Thirty-five states brought an antitrust case against two pharmaceutical companies, alleging that the companies had conspired to prevent the marketing of a generic version of a contraceptive, Ovcon 35. Defendants sought discovery from the plaintiff states, through their Attorneys General, concerning purchases of oral contraceptives by state Medicaid agencies. The Plaintiff states argued that the…
LG Display Co. Ltd. v. Madigan, 2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 23036 (7th Cir. 2011)
The Attorney General of Illinois filed suit in state court against eight manufacturers of LCD panels for violations of the Illinois Antitrust Act. The complaint sought injunctive relief, civil penalties, and treble statutory damages for the state as a purchaser and, as parens patriae, for harmed residents. The defendants removed the case to federal court…
Myinfoguard v. Sorrell, No. 2:12-cv-00102 (D.Vt. Nov. 9, 2012).
Out of state defendants challenged the constitutionality of a Vermont consumer protection statute in federal court. Days later, the state sued the defendants in state court for violations of the statute. Defendants sought removal under CAFA. The state sought an injunction, civil penalties and restitution for consumers. The court concluded that the state is the…
