A group of certified nurse assistant (CNA) training providers in Minnesota has filed a lawsuit challenging the legality of the state’s COVID-era initiative to offer free and competing CNA services. The lawsuit, filed on Thursday in a Minnesota federal court, alleges that the state’s program constitutes unlawful price-fixing, violating U.S. antitrust laws.
Twin Cities Safety, operating under the name HeartCert, along with other plaintiffs, argue that the state’s free CNA training initiative has had a detrimental impact on their businesses. The lawsuit claims that the state’s efforts, facilitated through various grant agreements, have created an uneven playing field, making it impossible for private training providers to compete with a government-sponsored program that offers the same training at no cost, reported Reuters.
Minnesota Governor Tim Walz announced the initiative in late 2021 as a response to the staffing shortages faced by long-term care facilities. The state aimed to recruit and train more nursing assistants, surpassing its goal of 1,000 recruits. Governor Walz commended the collaboration between the state, universities, and private training providers.
However, the lawsuit argues that the free program has led potential students to favor the state-sponsored option over private training services, resulting in significant economic harm to the plaintiffs and other CNA training providers. The complaint asserts that students are unwilling to pay for CNA training when they can access similar services for free at high schools or colleges participating in the state’s initiative.
Doug Anderson, a spokesperson for Minnesota’s state higher education system, defended the state’s program, stating, “We are proud of the important work that has been done through the Next Generation Nursing Assistant training program to address the critical shortage of Certified Nursing Assistants in Minnesota, and we are confident we will prevail in this litigation.”
The lawsuit challenges the notion that public governments are shielded from antitrust liability, arguing that Minnesota is not immune because its programs were not “affirmatively expressed as state policy.” The plaintiffs seek an injunction to halt Minnesota’s CNA training program, which covers the costs of tuition, books, materials, and a certification exam.
Source: Reuters
Featured News
Electrolux Fined €44.5 Million in French Antitrust Case
Dec 19, 2024 by
CPI
Indian Antitrust Body Raids Alcohol Giants Amid Price Collusion Probe
Dec 19, 2024 by
CPI
Attorneys Seek $525 Million in Fees in NCAA Settlement Case
Dec 19, 2024 by
CPI
Italy’s Competition Watchdog Ends Investigation into Booking.com
Dec 19, 2024 by
CPI
Minnesota Judge Approves $2.4 Million Hormel Settlement in Antitrust Case
Dec 19, 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