Plaintiff States alleged that Toys R Us entered into vertical and horizontal agreements with numerous toy manufacturers to limit the supply of certain popular toys to warehouse clubs.
Ohio, et al, v. Bristol-Myers Squibb Co., et al.(D.D.C. 2002); see also In re Buspirone Antitrust Litigation,Case No. 01 CV 11401, MDL 1410, MDL 1413 (S .D.N.Y.)
Plaintiff States sought damages and injunctive relief, alleging that the drug company, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Co. (BMS) wrongfully maintained a monopoly on Taxol, a drug for which the Plaintiff States alleged Defendant fraudulently filed a patent. BMS’s alleged wrongful action delayed entry into the market by generic competitors of the drug, resulting in higher prices for Taxol. In 2008, plaintiff states sued BMS for failing to report accurately to the states, pursuant to the settlemen, a patent arrangement involving the drug Plavix. The company pleaded guilty to lying to the FTC and the states recovered $1.1 million in fines.
Minnesota v. Mid-Minnesota Associated Physicians, 1991-1 Trade Cas. (CCH) 69,531 (Minn. Dist. Ct. 1991)
State sought damages and injunctive relief, alleging that Defendant, Mid-Minnesota Associated Physicians, negotiated contracts on behalf of their physician members having the effect of collectively refusing to deal with third-party payors unless the payors formed an integrated joint venture.
State sought an injunction, alleging that Defendant, Iowa Optometric Association participated in agreements, understandings, plans or courses of conduct with the foreseeable affect that optometrists could jointly refuse to provide optometric services to Medicaid recipients or refuse to participate in the Medicaid program.
State sought damages and injunctive relief, alleging that Defendant, Arizona Podiatry Association maintained a code of ethics provision restricting members form of advertising and solicitation of patients
State sought injunctive relief, alleging that Defendant, Arizona Radiological Society established bylaw and policy statements requiring members to work only on a fee-for-service basis.
Arizona v. Arizona State Psychological Association; 1988-1 Trade Cas. (CCH) 67,928 (Ariz. Super. Ct. 1988)
The Plaintiff State sought damages and injunctive relief, alleging that Defendant, Arizona State Psychological Association restrained members from truthful advertising and non-coercively soliciting clients
Arizona v. Chiropractic Association of Arizona, 1985-2 Trade Cas. (CCH) 66,737 (Ariz. Super. Ct. 1985)
State sought damages and injunctive relief, alleging that Defendant Chiropractic Association maintained a code of ethics provision restricting members form of advertising and solicitation of patients.
Defendant tire dealers association facilitated agreement among members to refuse to sell less than four studded snow tires at a time. Defendants also promoted sales by publishing or displaying information concerning the relative safety of tire installation without reasonable substantiation for their claims at the time they were made.