A federal judge has dismissed a lawsuit that accused six tire manufacturers of conspiring to fix prices.
In early-February 2024, a complaint accusing six tire manufacturers – Bridgestone Corp., Continental Tire the Americas LLC, Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co., Michelin North America Inc., Nokian Tyres Inc. and Pirelli Tire LLC - of price fixing was filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York.
Plaintiff Rena Sampayan sought class action status for the complaint, which accused the above companies and “doe defendants” of violating the Sherman Act by establishing “an unlawful agreement – some of the largest tire manufacturers in the United States and the world - to artificially increase and fix the prices of new replacement tires for passenger cars, vans, trucks and buses sold in the United States.”
The action alleged that the six tiremakers “coordinated price increases, including through public communications,” and stated the allegation was “supported by, among other things, defendants’ sudden and dramatic parallel price increases, which absent a conspiracy to fix prices, ran contrary to their economic interests; EC (European Commission) dawn raids of defendants; the high level of market concentration in the tire market; significant barriers to entry; lack of economic substitutes for tires; standardization of tires with a high degree of interchangeability; and the myriad opportunities that employees of defendants had to conspire with one another to fix prices of tires.”
The plaintiff sought “to represent a class of individuals that purchased tires directly from defendants at supracompetitive prices to recover treble damages, injunctive relief and other relief as appropriate, based on defendants’ violation of federal antitrust laws.”
The plaintiff demanded a trial by jury.
Another suit making the same accusation was filed by a different plaintiff in late-February 2024.
“In moving to dismiss, defendants argue that the consolidated complaints do not plausibly allege a price-fixing conspiracy,” Chief Judge Sara Lioi states in a recent document.
“Defendants primarily challenge the sufficiency of plaintiffs’ parallel conduct and plus factor allegations and argue that the economic impact of the COVID-19 pandemic is an ‘obvious alternative explanation’ for the price increases.
“Plaintiffs fail to allege what confidential information they believe defendants exchanged or how the ability to exchange such information would further the conspiracy alleged here.”
Download the full filing here:
