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.
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.
The State of California, et al. v. Samsung SDI, Co., Ltd., et al., Case No. CGC-11-515784, Calif. Superior Court, San Fran. Cty. Nov. 8, 2011
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.
Oregon ex rel. Rosenbloom v. LG Electronics, No. 120810246, (Ore. Cir. Ct., Multnomah Cty)
Oregon filed suit against cathode ray tube (CRT) manufacturers, alleging that they illegally agreed upon the pricing of CRTs. The Attorney General filed this action on behalf of the State of Oregon and Oregon natural persons, and sought restitution, civil penalties, disgorgement and injunctive relief.
