US: Lawsuit accuses Samsung, LG of agreeing to not poach each other’s employees
Samsung Electronics and LG Electronics were accused of agreeing to avoid poaching each other’s US employees, according to a US civil lawsuit filed last week, in what has become a familiar allegation in Silicon Valley.
The proposed class action, filed in a Northern California federal court by an LG sales manager, accuses Samsung and LG of antitrust violations and driving down employee wages. The case is similar to one against Apple Inc, Google and other tech companies which settled last year for $415 million.
The plaintiff, A. Frost, says in the lawsuit that a recruiter contacted Frost via LinkedIn in 2013, seeking to fill a position with Samsung.
According to the lawsuit, the recruiter then informed Frost the same day: “I made a mistake! I’m not supposed to poach LG for Samsung!!! Sorry! The two companies have an agreement that they won’t steal each other’s employees.”
It is “implausible” that such a deal in the United States could have been reached without the consent of each company’s corporate parent in South Korea, says the lawsuit, which does not state a specific damages amount.
Of course, the lawsuit might remind you of a similar one that was filed against Apple, Google, and a number of other large tech companies last year that was eventually settled for $415 million. According to the plaintiffs, this anti-poaching agreement was made in an effort to keep wages relatively low, and centers around emails sent from Apple’s late co-founder Steve Jobs to Google executive Eric Schmidt, which said that Google was “relentlessly recruiting” from Apple’s iPod team, and asked for the poaching to stop.
Full Content: Digital Trends
Want more news? Subscribe to CPI’s free daily newsletter for more headlines and updates on antitrust developments around the world.
Featured News
Judge Appoints Law Firms to Lead Consumer Antitrust Litigation Against Apple
Dec 22, 2024 by
CPI
Epic Health Systems Seeks Dismissal of Antitrust Suit Filed by Particle Health
Dec 22, 2024 by
CPI
Qualcomm Secures Partial Victory in Licensing Dispute with Arm, Jury Splits on Key Issues
Dec 22, 2024 by
CPI
Google Proposes Revised Revenue-Sharing Limits Amid Antitrust Battle
Dec 22, 2024 by
CPI
Japan’s Antitrust Authority Expected to Sanction Google Over Monopoly Practices
Dec 22, 2024 by
CPI
Antitrust Mix by CPI
Antitrust Chronicle® – CRESSE Insights
Dec 19, 2024 by
CPI
Effective Interoperability in Mobile Ecosystems: EU Competition Law Versus Regulation
Dec 19, 2024 by
Giuseppe Colangelo
The Use of Empirical Evidence in Antitrust: Trends, Challenges, and a Path Forward
Dec 19, 2024 by
Eliana Garces
Some Empirical Evidence on the Role of Presumptions and Evidentiary Standards on Antitrust (Under)Enforcement: Is the EC’s New Communication on Art.102 in the Right Direction?
Dec 19, 2024 by
Yannis Katsoulacos
The EC’s Draft Guidelines on the Application of Article 102 TFEU: An Economic Perspective
Dec 19, 2024 by
Benoit Durand