Skip to main content

A.G. Schneiderman Announces $571 Million Settlement With LCD Panel Manufacturers In Price Fixing Case

NEW YORK– Attorney General Eric T. Schneiderman today announced a $571 million multi-state settlement with three major technology corporations charged with illegally conspiring to boost prices for liquid crystal display (LCD) screens used in televisions, computer monitors, and laptops. As part of the agreement reached with AU Optronics Corporation, LG Display Co., Ltd., Toshiba Corporation, and affiliated entities of each corporation, New York State taxpayers are expected to receive upwards of $10 million through recovery for government purchases and penalties, in addition to restitution to compensate consumers affected by the scheme.

The corporate defendants in the latest round of settlements agreed to pay $543.5 million to settle antitrust claims brought on behalf of consumers, government entities, and other public entities by a multistate group of eight Attorneys General and private class action attorneys. Separately, two of the defendants agreed to pay $27.5 million in fines and penalties to the States. The defendants also agreed to engage in antitrust compliance programs.

Together with seven earlier settlements with other defendants reached by Attorney General Schneiderman in December 2011, total settlement payments will top $1.1 billion dollars.

“This price-fixing scheme created an unlevel playing field for businesses that abide by the rules, and left consumers paying artificially higher costs for televisions, computers and other electronics,” said Attorney General Schneiderman. “Protecting the integrity of the marketplace is the only way to ensure the best outcome for New York’s consumers. That is why my office will aggressively police anti-competitive practices and hold accountable corporations that violate the law.”

New York's complaint alleged that from 1999 to 2006 Japanese, Korean, and Taiwanese manufacturers of thin film transistor ("TFT") LCD panels, together with their U.S. affiliates, engineered a conspiracy to fix prices of TFT-LCD panels, and sold into New York millions of TFT-LCD panels at prices fixed by the cartel. TFT-LCD screens are essential components of televisions, computer monitors, and laptop screens. Substantially all TFT-LCD products sold in New York during the conspiracy period were sold at high prices illegally fixed by the conspiracy.

Following court approval of the settlements, at least $692 million will be available for partial refunds to compensate consumers residing in New York and 23 other States and the District of Columbia who purchased products containing TFT-LCD panels during the period beginning January 1, 1999 and continuing through December 31, 2006. Information on how consumers can claim partial refunds, once the Court has approved the settlements, as well as other information about the settlements and the court approval process, is available at www.lcdclass.com

In addition to the consumer recoveries, defendants in the case will pay $8 million in penalties to New York State's treasury. New York State and other New York public entities that purchased the price-fixed products will receive at least $8 million in partial refunds. Other States and public entities will receive an additional $34 million in penalties, and an additional $24 million in partial refunds.

These settlements conclude Attorney General Schneiderman's lawsuit against alleged LCD cartel participants. Attorney General Schneiderman expressed his gratitude to the New York State Office of General Services, New York's public procurement agency, for its important assistance in the case.

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 ...