Antitrust Law Daily Wrap Up, ANTITRUST NEWS: Another class action filed against providers of Vehicle Carrier Services for conspiracy to fix prices and allocate markets and customers, (Jul 31, 2013)

By Peter Reap, J.D., LL.M.

Another putative class of indirect purchasers have filed a class action lawsuit in the federal district court in San Francisco against providers of Vehicle Carrier Services in the United States, for engaging in at least a five-year-long conspiracy to fix, raise, maintain, and/or stabilize prices, and allocate the market and customers in the United States for Vehicle Carrier Services. Specifically, Vehicle Carrier Services refers to the paid ocean transportation of vehicles by specialized cargo ships known as Roll On/Roll Off vessels. Previously, three similar suits were filed by different class representatives on July 12, 2013, June 24, 2013, and May 28, 2013.

According to the complaint, the defendant shipping companies and their co-conspirators participated in a combination and conspiracy to suppress and eliminate competition in the Vehicle Carrier Services market by agreeing to fix, raise, maintain and/or stabilize the prices of, and to allocate the market and customers for, Vehicle Carrier Services sold to vehicle manufacturers and others in the United States. The combination and conspiracy engaged in by the defendants was an unreasonable restraint of interstate and foreign trade and commerce in violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act, as well as state antitrust, unfair competition, and consumer protection laws. As a result of the defendants’ unlawful conduct, consumers paid artificially inflated prices for Vehicle Carrier Services incorporated into the price of a new vehicle purchased or leased during the relevant period, and thereby suffered antitrust injury.

Specifically, the complaint contains four claims for relief: (1) violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act; (2) violation of state antitrust statutes, including those of California, the District of Columbia, Iowa, Kansas, Maine, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, North Dakota, Oregon, South Dakota, Tennessee, Utah, Vermont, West Virginia, and Wisconsin; (3) violation of state consumer protection statutes; and (4) unjust enrichment. The complaint seeks injunctive relief and damages, including the disgorgement of profits, pre- and post-judgment interest, and attorney fees.

The complaint in Bui v. NYK Line (North America) Inc., Case No. CV 13 3516, was filed July 30, 2013.

Attorneys: Daniel C. Girard (Girard Gibbs LLP) for Tiffany Bui.

Companies: NYK Line (North America) Inc.

News: Antitrust ConsumerProtection