Forty-eight plaintiff states filed a lawsuit against Facebook Inc., alleging that the company harms the public by illegally stifling competition to protect its monopoly power. The states alleged that, over the last decade, the social networking giant illegally acquired competitors in a predatory manner and cut services to smaller firms that threatened its power, depriving…
Complaint, parallel to FTC action against same Defendants, charges that PHO engaged in price-fixing and concerted refusals to deal in contracting with managed care payors.
Connecticut v. American Medical Response, Inc., No. CV-99-589962-S (CT Super. Ct., Hartford Dist. 1999)
Plaintiff state investigated ambulance service after mergers gave it significant market power in state. Settlement required divestiture of 30 licenses, 20 ambulances, and rights to several primary service areas or PSAs.
State alleged Hitachi and its distributors had coerced certain dealers into raising their prices by means of a concerted refusal to deal.
State sought damages and injunctive relief, alleging that Defendant pharmacies conspired to fix the price of prescription drugs and agreed not to deal with insurers and other third-party payors.
Virginia sought damages and injunctive relief, alleging that Defendants conspired with other physicians to determine terms, conditions or requirements upon which any physicians will or will not deal with any third-party payor, or to discuss or collectively determine the fees which any physicians will charge to any third-party payor.
State sought damages and permanent injunctive relief, alleging that Defendants, Alliance Dental Society and its member doctors, entered agreements to create or carry out restrictions in the trade and commerce of providing dental service to persons receiving assistance from the Ohio Department of Public Welfare.
State sought permanent injunctive relief, alleging that Defendant, Mahoning County Medical Society entered into agreements among physicians to suppress HMOs by refusing to grant them discounts or other terms of assistance to a prepaid plan.
New York v. New York State Society of Ophthalmic Dispensers, Inc., 1980-1 Trade Cas. (CCH) 63,074 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 1979)
Plaintiff State sought damages and injunctive relief, alleging that Defendant, New York State Society of Ophthalmic Dispensers, Inc., boycotted eyeglass lens and frame manufacturers that participated in pre-paid vision care plans.
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.