Case Details

Year Initiated/Committed


Year Resolved


Settlement Amount

$4.95 million


Superior Court of California, County of San Francisco

Docket Number


Lead State


Participating States



Samsung SDI, CO., LTD F/K/A Samsung Elecronics America, Inc.; Samsung SDI America, Inc; Samsung SDI Mexico, S.A. DE C.V.; Samsung SDI Brasil Ltda.; Shenzhen Samsung SDI Co., Ltd.; Tianjin Samsung SDI Co., Ltd; Samsung SDI (Malaysia) SDN. BHD.; Orion Electric Company; Daewoo Electronics Co.; Daewoo-Orion Societe Anonyme (“DOSA”); Hitachi Ltd.; Hitachi Displays, Ltd; Hitachi Electronic Devices (USA) Inc.; Hitachi America, Ltd.; Hitachi Asia, Ltd.; Shenzhen Seg Hitachi Color Display Devices, Ltd.; Irico Group Corporation; Irico Display Devices Co., Ltd.; Irico Group Electronics Co., Ltd.; LG Electronics, Inc.; LG Electronics USA, Inc.; LG Electronics Taiwan Taipei Co., Ltd.; LP Displays International, Ltd F/K/ A Lg Philips Displays; Panasonic Corporation (F/K/A Matshusita Electronic Industrial Co., Ltd.) Panasonic Corp. of North America; Matsushita Electronic Corporation (Malaysia) SDN BHD; MT Picture Display Co., Ltd; Beijing Matsushita Color CRT Company,Ltd.; Samtelcolor, Ltd.; Thai CRT Company, Ltd.; Toshiba Corporation; Toshiba America, Inc. Toshiba America Consumer Product, LLC; Toshiba America Information Systems, Inc.; Toshiba America Electronics Components, Inc.; Toshiba Display Devices (Thailand) Company, Ltd.; PT Tosummit Electronic Devices Indonesia

Case Description

California sued makers of CRTs alleging they were part of a price-fixing scheme that resulted in overcharges in the price of products that contained CRTs, such as televisions and computer monitors. The alleged price fixing scheme occurred between March 1, 1995 and November 25, 2007. According to the complaint, the conspiracy involved top-level meetings of key executive decision-makers in Asia and Europe to set prices and outputs of CRTs. It also involved worldwide meetings among lower-level executives to exchange confidential information. The settlements, which were filed in San Francisco Superior Court, require all five companies to pay a total of $4.95 million to settle claims of overcharges paid by California government entities, general damages suffered by the State’s economy, and civil penalties. The settlements require that the companies pay back the illegally obtained profits to those affected by their actions. In addition, the settlements include injunctive relief, which requires that each company engage in company-wide antitrust compliance training and reporting that involves products in addition to CRTs and extends to foreign companies and subsidiaries. Finally, the settlements include requirements, enforceable by the court via fines and imprisonment, to prevent future violations of antitrust law. There was a parallel class action by indirect purchasers nationwide that was brought in federal court by private parties. The state worked with the private plaintiffs and a settlement agreement was reached, under which California consumers recovered damages.