Antitrust Law Daily Wrap Up, ANTITRUST NEWS: Automobile dealers sue Panasonic for price fixing, (Feb 11, 2014)

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

A putative class of all automobile dealers who, since September 1, 2003, purchased vehicles containing one or more Steering Angle Sensor(s) from Panasonic Corp. and its North American subsidiary, Panasonic Corporation of North America (collectively, “Panasonic”) have filed suit alleging that Panasonic engaged in a long-running conspiracy to unlawfully fix, artificially raise, maintain and /or stabilize prices, rig bids for, and allocate the market and customers in the United States for Steering Angle Sensors.

According to the complaint, a Steering Angle Sensor is installed on the steering column of a vehicle and may be connected to and part of a combination switch; it detects the angle of the vehicle’s direction and sends signals to a vehicle computer which in turn controls for vehicle stability during turns. The U.S. Department of Justice Antitrust Division is currently conducting a broad criminal investigation into illegal price fixing and bid rigging in the automotive parts industry. The ongoing cartel investigation industry has yielded more than $1.8 billion in criminal fines.

Moreover, on July 18, 2013, the Justice Department announced that Panasonic Corporation agreed to plead guilty and pay a $45.8 million criminal fine for its role in a conspiracy to fix prices of automotive parts, including Steering Angle Sensors, installed in automobiles sold in the United States and elsewhere. In addition, the Department of Justice indicted Shinichi Kotani, an executive of Panasonic Automotive Systems Company of America, for his participation in a conspiracy to rig bids and fix prices for automotive parts, including switches, the complaint notes. A number of other automotive parts manufacturers have also pled guilty or agreed to plead guilty to bid rigging and price fixing in the automotive parts industry.

The complaint requests equitable and injunctive relief against the Panasonic for violating Section 1 of the Sherman Act. The plaintiffs also assert claims for actual and exemplary damages pursuant to state antitrust, unfair competition, and consumer protection laws, and seek to obtain restitution, recover damages, and secure other relief against Panasonic for violations of those state laws. The plaintiffs also seek attorney fees, costs, and other expenses under federal and state law, and demand a trial by jury.

The complaint in Martens Cars of Washington, Inc. v. Panasonic Corporation, Case No. 4:14-cv-10597-TGB-LJM, was filed February 7, 2014.

Attorneys: Brendan Frey (Mantese Honigman Rossmann and Williamson, P.C.) for Martens Cars of Washington, Inc.

Companies: Martens Cars of Washington, Inc.; Panasonic Corp.

News: Antitrust MichiganNews