Skip to main content

U-Haul and its Parent Company Settle FTC Charges That They Invited Competitors to Fix Prices on Truck Rentals

Settlement Bars Illegal Anti-competitive Tactics

U-Haul International, Inc. and its parent company today settled Federal Trade Commission charges that they violated the FTC Act by inviting U-Haul’s closest competitor, Avis Budget Group, Inc., to collude on prices for truck rentals. U-Haul and Budget control more than 70 percent of the “do-it-yourself” one-way truck rental business in the United States. If U-Haul had succeeded in its price-fixing plan, the two companies could have imposed higher prices on truck-rental consumers, according to the FTC.

“It’s a bedrock principle that you can’t conspire with your competitors to fix prices – and shouldn’t even try. Consumers deserve better. The order announced today will ensure that U-Haul will not try it again,” said FTC Chairman Jon Leibowitz.

The FTC’s complaint alleges that on several occasions between 2006 and 2008, U-Haul tried to increase rates for one-way truck rentals by privately and publicly communicating with Budget, the second-largest truck rental company in the United States. However, the complaint does not allege that U-Haul and Budget actually reached an agreement.

As alleged in the complaint, the problems started after U-Haul’s CEO and Chairman Edward J. Shoen discovered in 2006 that competition from Budget was forcing U-Haul to lower prices on its one-way truck rentals. In two company-wide memos in 2006, Shoen acknowledged the problem and provided a solution. For example, Shoen wrote:
“Budget continues in some markets to undercut us on One-Way rates. Either get below them or go up to a fair rate. Whatever you do, LET BUDGET KNOW. Contact a large Budget Dealer and tell them. Contact their company store and let the manager know.”

At the same time, the FTC charges, Shoen told local U-Haul dealers to talk to their counterparts at both Budget and Penske – another truck rental competitor – and tell them that
U-Haul had raised its one-way rates, and that they should now match U-Haul’s higher rates.

The complaint alleges that Shoen invited Budget to collude again in 2008 after Budget declined to match U-Haul’s price increases – this time, during a conference call with industry analysts. During the call, Shoen made statements suggesting that U-Haul would raise its rates, and would maintain the new rates so long as Budget did not respond by price cutting in a way that took market share from U-Haul. He added that Budget need not match the U-Haul prices exactly, but could lag behind by three to five percent.

The proposed settlement order against U-Haul and its parent company AMERCO bars them from colluding or inviting collusion. Specifically, the companies are prohibited from inviting a competitor to divide markets, allocate customers, or fix prices, as well as participating in, maintaining, organizing, implementing, enforcing, offering, or soliciting any other company to engage in such conduct. The order also includes monitoring and compliance provisions to ensure U-Haul and AMERCO comply with its terms. It will expire in 20 years.

The FTC vote approving the complaint and proposed settlement order was 5-0. Commissioners William E. Kovacic, J. Thomas Rosch, and Chairman Leibowitz issued a joint separate statement that can be found at: http://www.ftc.gov/os/caselist/0810157/100609uhaulstatement.pdf. The statement noted that Congress gave the FTC authority under Section 5 of the FTC Act to stop unfair methods of competition beyond the antitrust laws, but it is not itself an antitrust law and does not on its own terms create treble damages liability.

The order will be subject to public comment for 30 days, until July 9, 2010, after which the Commission will decide whether to make it final. Comments should be sent to: FTC, Office of the Secretary, 600 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W., Washington, DC 20580. To submit a comment electronically, please click on the following link: https//public.commentworks.com/ftc/U-HaulAmerco.

NOTE: The Commission issues a complaint when it has “reason to believe” that the law has been or is being violated, and it appears to the Commission that a proceeding is in the public interest. The issuance of a complaint is not a finding or ruling that the respondent has violated the law. A consent agreement is for settlement purposes only and does not constitute an admission of a law violation. When the Commission issues a consent order on a final basis, it carries the force of law with respect to future actions. Each violation of such an order may result in a civil penalty of up to $16,000.

Copies of the complaint, consent order, and an analysis to aid in public comment can be found on the FTC’s Web site at http://www.ftc.gov and also from the FTC’s Consumer Response Center, Room 130, 600 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W., Washington, DC 20580. The FTC’s Bureau of Competition works with the Bureau of Economics to investigate alleged anticompetitive business practices and, when appropriate, recommends that the Commission take law enforcement action. To inform the Bureau about particular business practices, call 202-326-3300, send an e-mail to antitrust@ftc.gov, or write to the Office of Policy and Coordination, Room 383, Bureau of Competition, Federal Trade Commission, 600 Pennsylvania Ave, N.W., Washington, DC 20580. To learn more about the Bureau of Competition, read “Competition Counts” at http://www.ftc.gov/competitioncounts.

MEDIA CONTACT:
Mitchell J. Katz
Office of Public Affairs
202-326-2161
STAFF CONTACT:
Dana Abrahamsen
FTC Bureau of Competition
202-326-2906

(FTC File No. 081-0157)
(U-Haul.final)

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

15 Gang Members Convicted on Conspiracy, Weapons Possession, Firearms Trafficking Charges Case Follows Recent Convictions of 137th Street Crew and East Harlem Narcotics Trafficking Organization

Manhattan District Attorney Cyrus R. Vance, Jr., announced the results of the investigation and prosecution of one of Central Harlem’s most destructive criminal street gangs, referred to as “ONE TWENTY-NINE” or “GOODFELLAS/THE NEW DONS,” which terrorized the neighborhood surrounding West 129th Street between Lenox and Fifth Avenues. Thirteen members of the gang have previously pleaded guilty to importing, possessing, and using firearms over the course of the conspiracy.

Mortgage Fraud

Manhattan District Attorney Robert M. Morgenthau announced today the indictment of 13 individuals and a mortgage origination company for perpetrating over $100 million in mortgage fraud over a four-year period in the New York City metropolitan area. In addition, 12 individuals have already waived indictment and pleaded guilty to felonies relating to their participation in the mortgage fraud scheme. The indictment charges 13 individuals and the mortgage company, AFG FINANCIAL GROUP, INC., with enterprise corruption, grand larceny, scheme to defraud and conspiracy involving 19 fraudulent mortgage transactions. The defendants include the principals and a number of employees of the mortgage company, as well as bank employees, appraisers, and three attorneys. Two other attorneys are among the defendants who already pleaded guilty. The crimes charged in the indictment occurred between June 2004 and April 2009 with the bulk of the fraudulent closings occurring from mid-2005 through the end of...

DISTRICT ATTORNEY VANCE ANNOUNCES INDICTMENT OF SIX SUBCONTRACTING COMPANIES AND THEIR OWNERS IN MULTIMILLION-DOLLAR FRAUD

Manhattan District Attorney Cyrus R. Vance, Jr., today announced the indictments of six subcontracting companies and their owners for colluding with LEHR CONSTRUCTION CORPORATION (LEHR) in a multimillion dollar scheme that defrauded numerous construction clients over the past decade. See, related story. The announcement comes one day after DA Vance announced LEHR and four executives were indicted on crimes including Enterprise Corruption, the New York State Racketeering law. GODSELL CONSTRUCTION CORPORATION and its owner ARTHUR GODSELL are charged with Grand Larceny in the Second Degree. JT ROSELLE LIGHTING, INC. and its owner JAMES ROSELLE, LIBERTY CONTRACTING CORPORATION and its owners GEORGE FOTIADIS and KEVIN FOTIADIS, PJ MECHANICAL and its owner JAMES PAPPAS, SUPERIOR ACOUSTICS, INC. and its owner KENNETH MCGUIGAN, and SWEENEY & HARKIN CARPENTRY and its owner MICHAEL HAYES are charged with Grand Larceny in the Third Degree.[1] "The defendants in this case cheated clie...