State of Maryland v. Johnson & Johnson Vision Care (Cir. Ct. Baltimore Cty Feb. 29, 2016)
State alleged that defendant, responding to requests from eye care professionals to limit competition from discounters, implemented a resale price maintenance policy, which fixed minimum retail prices for all retail sellers of Johnson & Johnson contact lenses. After objections from Costco, a large discount retailer, defendant revised its policy. Under Maryland law, although not federal law, an agreement establishing a minimum retail price is an unreasonable restraint of trade and per se illegal. The parties entered into an Assurance of Discontinuance under which Johnson & Johnson permanently discontinued the RPM agreements alleged and agreed to pay $50,000 in civil penalties.
Massachusetts v. J. Sainsbury, PLC, No. 99-2574A (Mass. Super. Ct. Suffolk Cty. Nov. 16, 2000)
State challenged the acquisition by J. Sainsbury of Star Markets supermarkets in Massachusetts. Defendant was required to divest 9 supermarkets, keep operating two others until a competitor opens up, and provide notice of future acquisitions. Consent decree was later modified to require only 8 divestitures.
Ohio v. Cargill, Tuscarawas Cty Ct. of Common Pleas (Mar. 21, 2012)
State alleged that two rock salt producers had agreed to divide up the Ohio market for rock salt, assigning different contracts to the two different producers. State alleged that the defendants actively submitted sham losing bids, which also excluded other bidders because Ohio’s “Buy Ohio” provisions give a preference to Ohio companies if at least two Ohio producers submit bids.The parties settled in June 2015 with a payments totaling $11.5 million.
Mississippi v. Entergy, No. C-2008-2086 (Chan. Ct. Hinds Cty. Miss. 2008)
State filed suit against Entergy, an electricity provider regulated by the state PSC, alleging that Entergy violated its duty to Mississippi customers under the PSC’s rules by charging higher prices for electricity in Mississippi than in other states, with no justification in costs. The case alleged violations of the state’s consumer protection act, fraud and unjust enrichment, as well as one antitrust claim, alleging restraint of trade on the production of electricity and that Entergy engrossed and forestalled electricity markets in the state.
Connecticut v. K&S Aktiongesellschaft (Ct.Super.Ct. Oct. 13, 2009)
In state action parallel to FTC action, Connecticut settled with parties to a merger of salt producers who had both had contracts with the state DOT for road deicing. Road deicing assets were divested to a regional company in order to preserve competition for Connecticut road de-icing contracts. The merging parties were required to provide up to 120,000 tons of de-icing salt for three years.
Minnesota v. Children’s Health of St. Paul, No. 4-94-CV-513 (D. Minn. 1994),
The children’s hospitals in Minneapolis and St. Paul sought to merge. The state filed a complaint and eventuallyreached a settlement, the term of which was five years, under which the entity would not be able to merge with any health care provider or specialty physician practice without the approval of the Attorney General. The merged entity would not be able to manage pediatric practices at other area hospitals. The merged entity was also prohibited from ent4ering into exclusive agreements with any group purchaser. The merged entity also could not, for two years, enter into any exclusive contract with physician specialty groups that would prevent them from providing services at other hospitals.
Florida v. Browning Ferris Industries, Inc.(1994)
This settlement agreement was entered into by the State of Florida and Browning Ferris Industries, Inc. (BFI) as a supplement to the consented Final Judgment reached in United States, State of Florida, and State of Maryland v. Browning Ferris Industries, Inc. This settlement agreement addresses the collection and disposal of MedX’s or BFI’s Medical Waste, and addresses Residential Contracts with public entities.
Davis et al. and Florida (intervening) v. Southern Bell Telephone Co., No. 89-2839-CIV (S.D. Fla. 1991)
Florida intervened in the Davis v. Southern Bell action, seeking injunctive relief and civil penalties, alleging that Southern Bell Telephone Company (Southern Bell) monopolized the inside wire maintenance and other optional service markets and overcharged subscribers; that Southern Bell’s marketing for certain optional services contained misrepresentations, that Southern Bell billed certain customers for optional inside wire maintenance plans and other optional services which customers did not know they had or did not know were optional.
Florida v. JW Conner & Son Contracting Company et al. No. 82-1322-Civ-T-WC (M.D.Fla. 1983); No. 84-7023-Civ-MMP (N.D.Fla. 1984)
The State of Florida sought treble damages and injunctive relief, alleging that defendant highway construction companies colluded or rigged the bids in submission of construction contracts, subcontracts, and contracts for equipment, materials, or supplies.