General Electric Gas Anesthesia Machine

General Electric Servicing of Gas Anesthesia Machines Antitrust Class Action

This complaint alleges General Electric and subsidiaries have conspired to block competition for the servicing of GE’s gas anesthesia machines. It brings suit under the Sherman antitrust laws—not on behalf of the those so blocked, but on behalf of those who must pay higher prices to have their machines serviced.  Read more

Antitrust
Requiring Consumer to Pay Higher Prices, Antitrust
Company Cars Lined Up in Lot at CIS

Critical Intervention, KKP Antitrust Security Guard Class Action

Can two companies, a law firm, and a few individuals restrain trade in the security guard industry in a state? The complaint for this class action alleges that Critical Intervention Services, Inc. (CIS), the KPP Security Group (KPP), the Solomon Law Group, PA, and four people did exactly that. It alleges that the companies “entered  Read more

Antitrust
No-Poach Agreements, Antitrust
Different Kinds of Viega Press Pipe Fittings

Viega Pipe Press Fittings Antitrust Class Action

Can a single company enforce a monopoly in a market, even if other manufacturers sell similar goods at lower prices? The complaint for this class action alleges that Viega, LLC used its exclusive position with one kind of pipe fitting to prevent customers from buying other kinds from competitors.   Read more

Antitrust
Antitrust
Example of Bond Certificate

Major Securities Dealers Fixing of Spread for GSE Bonds Antitrust Class Action

At times, government-sponsored enterprises (GSEs) issue bonds to fund what the complaint for this class action calls “economic and public policy mandates.” The complaint for this class action claims that dealers in these bonds conspired to fix their prices in a way that would earn the dealers more money, in violation of antitrust laws.  Read more

Antitrust
Securities, Price Manipulation, Antitrust
H&R Block Logo

H&R Block No-Poach Agreements Antitrust Class Action

H&R Block has over 10,000 of its own offices, in the US and elsewhere, plus 3,300 franchises across the US. The complaint for this class action alleges that the company does not permit its various corporate-owned offices and franchises to compete with each other for employees. Such no-poach agreements violate antitrust laws.   Read more

Antitrust
No-Poach Agreements, Antitrust
Arby's Sandwich with Meat and Cheese on a Bum

Arby’s No-Poach Franchise Agreements in Colorado Class Action

This is another among many antitrust class actions being brought against fast food companies for the no-poach clauses in their franchise agreements. As in other cases, the complaint alleges that the clauses are anticompetitive and keep wages low.  Read more

Antitrust
No-Poach Agreements, Antitrust
H&R Block Green Square Logo

H&R Block Anticompetitive No-Poach Agreements Class Action

Fast food outlets apparently aren’t the only businesses that put no-poach provisions into their franchise agreements. The complaint for this class action brings this antitrust case claiming that H&R Block, Inc. and H&R Block Tax Services, LLC also engaged in this anticompetitive practice.  Read more

Antitrust
Antitrust
Jen-Weld Door

Masonite and Jen-Weld Interior Molded Door Antitrust Class Action

What’s a doorskin? It’s a part of the most popular type of interior door sold in North America, the interior molded door. The complaint for this class action claims that Masonite Corporation and Jeld-Wen, Inc. violated antitrust laws despite a US Department of Justice (DOJ) effort to avoid this.   Read more

Antitrust
Unfair Competition, Antitrust
Papa John's Pizza

Papa John’s No-Poach Franchise Agreements Antitrust Class Action

Papa John’s is the fourth-largest pizza company in the world, the complaint for this class action says. As such, the complaint alleges, its no-poach agreements are likely to have an anticompetitive effect on the labor market.  Read more

Antitrust
No-Poach Agreements, Antitrust
Swimming Event from 2015 FINA World Championships

FINA Anticompetitive Control over Top-Tier Swimmers Class Action

This antitrust class action takes on the Fédération Internationale de Natation (FINA), or the International Federation of Swimming. The complaint alleges that FINA controls swimmers’ access to participation in the Olympics and uses that control to keep swimmers’ pay low and to prevent any similar organization from entering the market.   Read more

Antitrust
Sports, Antitrust