Skip to main content

ATTORNEY GENERAL CUOMO FILES ANTITRUST LAWSUIT AGAINST PRICE FIXING CARTEL OF LCD PANEL MANUFACTURERS

Lawsuit seeks to recover damages suffered by New York State governmental and other public entities from illegal price fixing conspiracy

NEW YORK, NY (August 6, 2010) - Attorney General Andrew M. Cuomo today filed an antitrust action against several major technology companies for illegally fixing prices for liquid crystal display (“LCD”) screens used in computers, televisions, and cell phones.

The lawsuit seeks to recover damages suffered from 1996 to 2006 by New York State and other public purchasers - local governments, schools, hospitals, and colleges, among others - that purchased computers and other goods containing the price-fixed screens. The suit seeks damages, restitution, and civil penalties.

The lawsuit, filed in State Supreme Court in New York County, alleges that companies in Japan, Korea, and Taiwan, and their U.S. counterparts, engineered a cartel that dominated the $70 billion market for LCD screens for approximately a decade. The cartel ensured that LCD prices were set not by competition, but by detailed and explicit secret agreements among the competitors. New York State purchasers paid artificially higher prices for products containing LCD panels as a result of the illegal conspiracy.

“Our investigation shows that an illegal cartel eliminated competition in the marketplace for LCD screens, made its own secret decisions to boost prices, and then took steps to make those high prices stick,” said Attorney General Cuomo. “As a result, hard-pressed New York cities, towns, schools, and hospitals spent hundreds of millions of dollars on LCD screens affected by the illegal conspiracy. My office is bringing this case to get those illegal overcharges back.”

Specifically, the lawsuit cites evidence that:

Top-level executives, including CEOs, attended secret meetings on a regular monthly or quarterly basis to agree on minimum prices, price targets and increases, and prices to be charged to specific computer manufacturers;
Companies exchanged production information and agreed to certain output levels;
In order to cover up the conspiracy, companies coordinated their messages to their customers and manipulated media announcements in order to give the false impression that their agreed upon price hikes were due to supply and demand conditions; and
Because of the cartel, conspirators were able to avoid competition and keep LCD prices artificially high to the detriment of computer manufacturers and consumers.

The defendants named in the action are:

AU Optronics Corporation;
AU Optronics Corporation America, Inc.;
Chi Mei Corporation;
Chi Mei Optoelectronics Corporation;
Chi Mei Optoelectronics USA, Inc.;
CMO Japan Co., Ltd.;
Hitachi Displays, Ltd.;
Hitachi, Ltd.;
Hitachi Electronic Devices (USA), Inc.;
LG Display Co., Ltd.;
LG Display America, Inc.;
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.;
Samsung Electronics America, Inc.;
Samsung Semiconductor, Inc.;
Sharp Corporation;
Sharp Electronics Corporation;
Toshiba Corporation;
Toshiba Matsushita Display Technology Co., Ltd.;
Toshiba America Information Systems, Inc.;
Toshiba America Electronic Components, Inc.

This case is being handled by Assistant Attorneys General John Ioannou and Geralyn J. Trujillo and Acting Chief of the Antitrust Bureau Richard L. Schwartz, under the supervision of Deputy Attorney General for Economic Justice Michael Berlin and Executive Deputy Attorney General for Economic Justice Maria Vullo.

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.

The Myth, The Matrix, and The Malpractice: Unpacking the Sophia Stewart Saga

The internet loves a good underdog story, especially one where a lone creator battles Hollywood giants. Few tales have captivated online forums and social media quite like that of Sophia Stewart, the woman who famously sued the creators of The Matrix and The Terminator, claiming they stole her work, "The Third Eye." Her story is a complex tapestry woven with claims of stolen genius, judicial conflicts, and attorney negligence. Let's untangle the legal facts from the compelling narrative and examine the heart of her claims. The Core Allegation: "The Third Eye" and the Blockbusters Sophia Stewart alleged that her copyrighted manuscript, "The Third Eye," conceived in 1981 and finalized in 1983, was the blueprint for two of the most iconic sci-fi franchises: The Terminator (first film 1984) and The Matrix (first film 1999). From her perspective, the similarities were undeniable. Stewart’s supporters often point to broad, impactful themes and ev...

Charlie Kirk Was Right, and Charlie Kirk Was Wrong: The Enduring Legacy of the Civil Rights Act of 1964

Charlie Kirk, a prominent conservative commentator, has argued that the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was unnecessary, contending that the 14th Amendment should have been sufficient to guarantee equal rights. There's a compelling argument to be made for both sides of this statement. Let's break down where Kirk was right and, more importantly, where historical context reveals he was profoundly wrong. Where Charlie Kirk Was "Right" (In Theory) Kirk's theoretical point hinges on the idea that fundamental constitutional principles, if interpreted and enforced correctly, should have negated the need for additional legislation. And, in a perfect world, he would be correct. The 14th Amendment, ratified in 1868, explicitly states that "no State shall... deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." The intent was to ensure all citizens, particularly newly freed African Americans, were treated equally under the law. If this ...