The US Supreme Court ruled Tuesday that an antitrust lawsuit initiated by Mississippi against LCD screen makers could not be moved to federal court as the defendants had wished, a decision reports say will make it more difficult to sue foreign companies in domestic courts.
The New York Times reported Tuesday that the SCOTUS unanimously voted that the case, which brought legal action against liquid crystal display makers AU Optronics and Sharp for allegations of price-fixing, must remain in Mississippi. The companies, who were found by federal regulators to have fixed LCD prices in a worldwide scandal, looked to have the case moved to federal court under the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005 on hopes they would receive a more positive outcome than in state court.
The companies had looked to qualify the lawsuit as a so-called “mass action” under the 2005 law in order to move the case. To qualify, there must be more than 100 plaintiffs in a state that could be considered hostile against corporate defendants.
But SCOTUS’s decision Tuesday found that the lawsuit did not qualify as a mass action as Mississippi was the only named plaintiff. An attempt to name all plaintiffs involved, Justice Sonia Sotomayor said, would lead to “an administrative nightmare that Congress could not possibly have intended.”
The SCOTUS ruling overturns a lower court’s decision that the case should be heard in federal court.
Reports say the unanimous ruling, along with a second decision also revealed Tuesday regarding human rights abuses in Argentina, will make it more difficult for plaintiffs to sue foreign firms in federal court.
Full Content: Insurance Journal
Want more news? Subscribe to CPI’s free daily newsletter for more headlines and updates on antitrust developments around the world.
Featured News
Judge Allows FTC Antitrust Case Against Amazon to Move Forward
Oct 1, 2024 by
CPI
SAP Leader Urges Caution on EU AI Rules, Warns of Competitive Disadvantage
Oct 1, 2024 by
CPI
Colorado’s Grocery Workers Unite to Oppose $24.6 Billion Supermarket Merge
Oct 1, 2024 by
CPI
Canada’s Competition Bureau Warns Businesses of Tougher Enforcement
Oct 1, 2024 by
CPI
Top Antitrust Lawyers Launch New Boutique Firm
Oct 1, 2024 by
CPI
Antitrust Mix by CPI
Antitrust Chronicle® – Refusal to Deal
Sep 27, 2024 by
CPI
Antitrust’s Refusal-to-Deal Doctrine: The Emperor Has No Clothes
Sep 27, 2024 by
Erik Hovenkamp
Why All Antitrust Claims are Refusal to Deal Claims and What that Means for Policy
Sep 27, 2024 by
Ramsi Woodcock
The Aspen Misadventure
Sep 27, 2024 by
Roger Blair & Holly P. Stidham
Refusal to Deal in Antitrust Law: Evolving Jurisprudence and Business Justifications in the Align Technology Case
Sep 27, 2024 by
Timothy Hsieh