lcd panel price fixing in stock

(Reuters) - Samsung Electronics Co, Sharp Corp and five other makers of liquid crystal displays agreed to pay more than $553 million to settle consumer and state regulatory claims that they conspired to fix prices for LCD panels in televisions, notebook computers and monitors.A worker prepares a display of Sharp flat panel televisions for the 2009 International Consumer Electronics Show (CES) at the Las Vegas Convention Center in Las Vegas, Nevada, January 7, 2009. REUTERS/Steve Marcus

The settlement is the latest arising from lawsuits alleging the creation of an international cartel designed to illegally inflate prices and stifle competition in LCD panels between 1999 and 2006, affecting billions of dollars of U.S. commerce.

In December 2006, authorities in Japan, Korea, the European Union and the United States revealed a probe into alleged anti-competitive activity among LCD panel manufacturers. Many companies and executives have since pleaded guilty to criminal antitrust violations and paid more than $890 million in fines.

The latest payout includes $538.6 million to resolve claims by “indirect” purchasers that bought televisions and computers with thin film transistor LCDs, as well as claims by eight states: Arkansas, California, Florida, Michigan, Missouri, New York, West Virginia and Wisconsin.

“This price-fixing scheme manipulated the playing field for businesses that abide by the rules, and left consumers to pay artificially higher costs for televisions, computers and other electronics,” Schneiderman said in a statement on Tuesday.

Other defendants have yet to settle, including Taiwan-based AU Optronics Corp, one of the largest LCD panel manufacturers; South Korea’s LG Display Co and Toshiba Corp.

The accord follows a settlement this month by eight companies, including Samsung and Sharp, to pay $388 million to settle litigation by direct purchasers of the LCD panels.

WASHINGTON — Executives from LG Display Co. Ltd. and Chunghwa Picture Tubes Ltd. have agreed to plead guilty and serve jail time in the United States for participating in a global conspiracy to fix prices in the sale of Thin Film Transistor-Liquid Crystal Display (TFT-LCD) panels, the U.S. Department of Justice announced today.

According to a one-count felony charge filed today in U.S. District Court in San Francisco, Chang Suk "C.S." Chung, a Korean LG executive, conspired with unnamed employees from other panel makers to suppress and eliminate competition by fixing the prices of TFT-LCD panels from on or about Sept. 21, 2001, to on or about June 1, 2006. According to a separate one-count felony charge, also filed today in U.S. District Court in San Francisco, Chieng-Hon "Frank" Lin, a Taiwanese former executive from Chunghwa, and Chih-Chun "C.C." Liu and Hsueh-Lung "Brian" Lee, Taiwanese current employees of Chungwha, are charged with participating in the same conspiracy at various times during the period from Sept. 14, 2001, to on or about Dec. 1, 2006.

Under the plea agreements, which must be approved by the court, all four executives have agreed to serve a term of imprisonment, pay a criminal fine and assist the government in its ongoing TFT-LCD investigation.

TFT-LCD panels are used in computer monitors and notebooks, televisions, mobile phones, and other electronic devices. In 2006, the worldwide market for TFT-LCD panels was approximately $70 billion.

Chih-Chun Liu, a Taiwanese citizen, was Chunghwa’s Vice President of LCD Sales during the charged conspiracy period. Under the plea agreement, Liu has agreed to serve a seven-month prison sentence in the United States and pay a $30,000 criminal fine.

Hsueh-Lung Lee, a Taiwanese citizen, held various sales positions at Chunghwa during the charged conspiracy period, including Vice President of LCD Sales. Under the plea agreement, Lee has agreed to serve a six-month prison sentence in the United States and pay a $20,000 criminal fine.

These four foreign-based executives were charged with participating with co-conspirators in a conspiracy that was accomplished by: Participating in meetings, conversations and communications in Taiwan, South Korea and the United States to discuss the prices of TFT-LCD panels;

"These are the first individuals to plead guilty to a charge of fixing prices in this active investigation into antitrust violations in the TFT-LCD industry," said Scott D. Hammond, the Antitrust Division’s Deputy Assistant Attorney General for Criminal Enforcement. "We will continue in our efforts to bring to justice other domestic and foreign-based executives who were involved with fixing TFT-LCD prices."

On Dec. 16, 2008, Sharp Corp. pleaded guilty to three separate conspiracies to fix the prices of TFT-LCD panels sold to Dell Inc., Apple Computer Inc. and Motorola Inc., and was sentenced to pay a $120 million criminal fine.

The four executives are charged with price fixing in violation of the Sherman Act, which carries a maximum fine of $1 million and up to 10 years in prison for an individual. The maximum fine may be increased to twice the gain derived from the crime or twice the loss suffered by the victims of the crime, if either of those amounts is greater than the statutory maximum fine.

Anyone with information concerning illegal conduct in the TFT-LCD industry is urged to call the San Francisco Field Office of the Antitrust Division at 415-436-6660.

The companies are accused of colluding to artificially inflate the prices of LFT LCD panel prices for seven years, starting in 1999. This is just the latest sanction in an ongoing series of lawsuits and probes that have brought against the cartel by consumers, state and federal governments, and international organizations since 2006. Of this settlement amount, $501 million will be used to issue partial refunds to consumers in 24 states who purchased products that used the offending panels between 1999 and 2006. The companies are also paying $37 million to government and other public agencies that purchased the panels.

“This price-fixing scheme manipulated the playing field for businesses that abide by the rules, and left consumers to pay artificially higher costs for televisions, computers and other electronics,” New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman said in a statement.

So far, the companies and executives have racked up more than $890 million in fines, according to Reuters. In 2008, LG Display, Sharp and Chunghwa Picture Tubes plead guilty to criminal charges for the price fixing conspiracy and agreed to pay $585 million in fines. According to the Justice Department, the companies held meetings at which they agreed on a fixed price for the panels and exchanged sales information in order to keep the agreement in check.

According to Bloomberg, which obtained court papers filed yesterday in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California in San Francisco, Sharp and Samsung paid $105 million and $82.7 million, respectively, for their alleged involvement in driving up prices for LCDs sold between 1999 and 2006. Chimei Innolux paid $78 million as part of the class action lawsuit"s settlement.

"They colluded on minimum prices of panels, pricing policies on each product type, timing of price increases, and a ban on cash rebates," the country"s Fair Trade Commission said at the time. "They were aware that such action was illegal, and kept their gatherings and information secret."

The alleged price fixing impacted several markets and a host of companies, including Dell, Motorola, and Apple. In 2009, AT&T and Nokia sued Samsung, LG Display, and other panel makers, alleging that the companies artificially inflated prices on LCD panels. Dell followed with a lawsuit of its own last year, taking aim at Sharp, Hitachi, Toshiba, and others, accusing the firms of collusion on LCD panel pricing.

Beginning next week, checks will be in the mail for consumers affected by an elaborate price-fixing conspiracy by LCD manufacturers, Attorney General Bob Ferguson announced Thursday.

The recovery is among the largest in the AGO Antitrust Division’s history. The scheme by LCD manufacturers drove up costs on TVs, monitors, laptops and cellphones.

For eight years, consumers in Washington and throughout the world were significantly overcharged every time they bought a product with a liquid crystal display, or LCD, screen because of a conspiracy by the world’s largest LCD manufacturers.

According to the AG’s complaint filed in 2010, LCD manufacturers participated in cartel meetings in which they exchanged price information and agreed to fix prices and manipulate the supply of LCD panels to artificially increase prices.

The earliest meeting occurred over a round of golf in Taiwan in 1998, where the LCD manufacturers met to discuss concerns over increased competition in the industry.

This led to regular gatherings, known as “crystal meetings,” where the LCD manufacturers met to fix the prices on LCD panel prices by exchanging confidential price and shipment information.

In May 2015, AG Ferguson recovered $63 million from the nine LCD manufacturers who participated in the price-fixing scheme. A total of $41.1 million will be returned to consumers, another $6 million will go to state agencies affected by the scheme, and the remainder will cover the costs of the case and fund antitrust efforts in Washington.

Checks will be mailed out within the next week, and should arrive with claimants in the next few weeks. People with questions about their claims should contact AB Data at 866-778-9468 or walcdsettlement@abdata.com.

A South Korean executive with LG Display has agreed to plead guilty and serve a year in prison for participating in a global conspiracy to fix the prices of TFT-LCD (thin-film transistor liquid crystal display) panels, the U.S. Department of Justice announced.

Bock Kwon, who served in several executive roles at LG Display, conspired with employees from other TFT-LCD panel makers to fix prices between September 2001 and June 2006, the DOJ said. In agreeing Monday to plead guilty to a one-count felony price-fixing charge, Kwon faces up to a year in prison and a US$30,000 fine. A judge in U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California must still approve the plea agreement.

TFT-LCD panels are used in computer monitors and notebooks, televisions, mobile phones and other electronic devices. In 2006, the worldwide market for TFT-LCD panels was approximately $70 billion, the DOJ said.

"The participants in the LCD conspiracy committed a serious fraud upon American consumers by fixing the prices of a product that is in almost every American home," Christine Varney, assistant attorney general in charge of the DOJ"s Antitrust Division, said in a statement. "The charges against top-level executives who participated in the LCD conspiracy show the commitment of the Department of Justice to finding and prosecuting those at the highest levels, no matter where they live or where these crimes against American consumers were committed."

Including Monday"s charge, four companies and nine individuals have been charged in the DOJ"s ongoing antitrust investigation into the TFT-LCD industry. More than $616 million in criminal fines have been imposed, and four people have pleaded guilty and have been sentenced to serve jail time.

In December, LG Display pleaded guilty to participating in a worldwide conspiracy to fix the price of TFT-LCD panels and was sentenced to pay a $400 million criminal fine, the second-largest fine in DOJ Antitrust Division history. Between December and March, Sharp, Chunghwa Picture Tubes and Hitachi Displays also pleaded guilty to price-fixing charges, and agreed to pay fines ranging from $31 million to $120 million.

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Three major electronics manufacturers have agreed to plead guilty to a price-fixing conspiracy and pay $585 million in criminal fines for their roles in the pricing of LCD display panels, the Justice Department said Wednesday.

"These price-fixing conspiracies affected millions of American consumers who use computers, cell phones and numerous other household electronics every day," said Barnett. He declined to estimate losses stemming from the price fixing, but said he expected to provide some measure of the damages when the corporations are sentenced.

The Justice Department said LG Display Company, previously LG Philips, will pay by far the largest fine - $400 million, the second highest criminal fine ever imposed for price-fixing. The firm agreed to plead guilty to participating in a conspiracy from 2001 to 2006 to set the price of LCD panels worldwide.

Sharp agreed to pay a $120 million fine for three separate conspiracies with unnamed partners who sold LCD panels with artificially inflated prices to Dell (DELL, Fortune 500) for computer monitors and laptops, Motorola (MOT, Fortune 500) for panels in Razr mobile phones and Apple (AAPL, Fortune 500) for panels used in iPod portable music players.

A grand jury in San Francisco has indicted the former senior manager of sales and marketing at Hitachi Displays for allegedly participating in a global price-fixing conspiracy for LCD panels sold to Dell, the U.S. Department of Justice said.

Sakae Someya, a Japanese national, is the eighth person facing charges in the DOJ"s investigation of price-fixing for Thin Film Transistor-Liquid Crystal Display (TFT-LCD) panels. Someya, who worked at Hitachi from 2001 to 2004, is charged with violating the U.S. Sherman Act, an antitrust law, which carries a maximum fine of US$1 million, or twice the loss suffered by victims, and 10 years in prison.

The indictment, filed late Tuesday in U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, charges Someya with conspiring with unnamed others to suppress or eliminate competition by fixing the price of TFT-LCD panels sold to Dell for use in laptops, according to court documents. In 2006, the worldwide market for TFT-LCD screens was about $70 billion, the DOJ said.

“Practically every American consumer has been impacted by the TFT-LCD conspiracies,” Scott Hammond, acting assistant attorney general in charge of the DOJ"s Antitrust Division, said in a statement. “Today, the department is holding a high-level executive accountable for his conduct.”

In addition to eight people, the DOJ has charged four companies in its ongoing LCD price-fixing investigation. To date, courts have imposed more than $585 million in fines related to the price-fixing charges.

Someya allegedly attended meetings with competitors to discuss the price of TFT-LCD panels sold to Dell, the DOJ said. During those meetings, representatives of LCD makers agreed to set prices, and the participants took steps to conceal the price agreements, the DOJ said.

On Dec. 15, LG Display pleaded guilty to participating in a conspiracy to fix the prices for TFT-LCD panels and was sentenced to pay a $400 million criminal fine, the second-largest fine in DOJ Antitrust Division history.

A day later, Sharp pleaded guilty to participating in three separate conspiracies to fix the prices of TFT-LCD panels sold to Dell, Apple and Motorola and was sentenced to pay a $120 million criminal fine.

Without the price-fixing scheme, liquid-crystal panels would have been even cheaper, and they are key parts in a wide range of products. For example, the screen represents 10 percent to 20 percent of the total cost of a notebook PC, said Rob Enderle, an independent analyst in San Jose, California.

The effect was somewhat higher prices. "These price-fixing conspiracies affected millions of American consumers who use computers, cellphones, and numerous other household electronics every day," Barnett said in a statement.

During the Bush administration, antitrust enforcement has been selective and often guided by a hands-off, pro-business philosophy, legal experts say. But price-fixing cartels are an area of antitrust in which there is no debate about enforcement. In a 2004 Supreme Court decision, which was unanimous, cartels were called "the supreme evil of antitrust."

Six manufacturers of LCD panels, including Samsung and LG, have been fined €648m for pre-agreeing pricing, supplying and future production runs of the widely used digital display components.

On Wednesday the European Commission announced that Samsung, LG Display, AU Optronics, Chimei Innolux Corporation, Chunghwa Picture Tubes and HannStar Display Corporation were all being fined for their involvement in the price-fixing cartel between October 2001 and February 2006.

Liquid crystal display (LCD) panels are crucial components for the flat display screens used by televisions, computer monitors, notebooks and smartphones. The cartel"s decisions affected European consumers, the Commission said, because the "vast majority" of devices incorporating the LCD panels that were sold in the EU came from Asia.

If you would like to know the status of your claim, email the Notice Administrator at info@lcdclass.com or call the toll-free hotline at 1-855-225-1886.

Read this please. People other than these states are they eligible or no ? Under the terms of the LCD price-fixing settlement, the companies will pay a combined $1.1 billion to consumers in 24 states and Washington, D.C. that purchased a laptop, computer monitor or television with a flat-panel LCD display between January 1, 1999 and December 31, 2006 manufactured by one of these companies.

The LCD class action settlement only covers consumers who purchased INDIRECTLY from these companies. “Indirectly” means that you purchased an LCD panel in a television, monitor or notebook computer from someone other than the manufacturer of that panel (such as at Best Buy, Amazon.com, etc.). The states covered under the LCD class action settlement include:

UPDATE 3: On Oct. 27, 2014, our readers began reporting that they finally from the LCD panel class action settlement. Some readers have received checks worth hundreds of dollars. Let us know how much money YOU received in the comments section below. Congratulations!

Called the number this a.m. here in Florida because I wanted to know about the distribution of checks and the rep told me that my check was issued on Saturday past. I am anxiously awaiting the arrival of my funds simply because I have waited a long time. However, she could not or would not provide the amount of my check, she told me that they could not give that information out over the phone. Go figure. Therefore, I asked her about how many panels had I claimed since it had taken so long and I forgot the information and she glady gave me that information. From that I was able to multiply and come up with a round about figure. I will post later when I get off from work to see if it is in the mail today. I am giving it until Friday to show up, I hope it comes soon though.

UPDATE 10/23/14: A federal judge reportedly gave authorization to distribute the LCD class action settlement funds at a hearing on Oct. 17. 2014, and the checks are likely to be distributed the last week in October. Read more.

On July 24, 2014, you were sent an email advising you that all appeals in the LCD Indirect Purchaser Class Action Settlement had been dismissed and that the final steps necessary to disburse recoveries to Claimants were proceeding. This email is to provide you with an update on the status of these claim processing activities and the anticipated schedule for distributing checks. You will not receive any further email updates on the status of these procedures unless there is some significant unforeseen delay.

You are being sent this email because you filed a claim. Receipt of this email does not mean that your claim has been deemed eligible. If you would like to know if anything further is needed for your claim, or if you have questions, email the Notice Administrator at info@lcdclass.com or call the toll-free hotline at 1-855-225-1886. Additionally, please let us know if your address changes.

You previously filed a claim to share in the LCD Indirect Purchaser Class Action Settlement. As you may be aware, distribution of the settlement proceeds to Claimants had been delayed because of appeals from the Court’s approval of the settlements. All appeals have now been dismissed. Accordingly, we now can move forward with concluding the procedures necessary to disburse recoveries to Claimants. This email is to provide you with an update on the status of these claim processing activities.

You are being sent this email because you filed a claim. Receipt of this email does not mean that your claim has been deemed eligible. If you would like to know if anything further is needed for your claim, or if you have questions, email the Notice Administrator at info@lcdclaims.com or call the toll-free hotline at 1-855-225-1886. Additionally, please let us know if your address changes.

UPDATE: Distribution of funds from the LCD class action settlement has been delayed by appeals. The Settlement Administrator is estimating that the appeals will not be resolved until 2015 to 2018. More info: http://topclassactions.com/lawsuit-settlements/lawsuit-news/23583-update-lcd-class-action-settlement-money-delayed-appeals/

You are being sent this email because you filed a claim in the LCD Indirect Purchaser Class Action Settlement. This email is to provide an update on the court proceedings in this case which directly affect when payments will be disbursed under the Settlement.

Receipt of this email does not mean that your claim has been deemed eligible. We are continuing to review claims and we will contact you if your claim is deficient or additional information is needed. If you would like to know if anything further is needed for your claim, or if you have questions regarding the Court proceedings, please feel free to email the Notice Administrator at info@lcdclass.com or call the toll-free hotline at 1-855-225-1886. Additionally, if you change addresses, please let us know.

If you click on the link above…LCD.com, it states that all 10 settlements have final approval with the court. There are appeals pending & that no payments will be made to class members until all appeals are resolved. This was updated 9/27/13.

Sent in all required paperwork (plenty of time) -received a letter dated Feb. 21, 2013 – stating “All proof you submitted to support your claim was accepted.” – Contacted LCD to check on the status – they told me “you failed to send in your paperwork!” I’m a bit upset over this!

I have a indirect claim that I filed a long time ago. I even received a letter wanting to clarify the number of screens I purchased. Now today I get an LCD FLAT PANEL CONSUMER CLAIM FORM….did anybody else receive the same thing? Why would they send this out now?

"Tis the season for settling antitrust lawsuits, folks. Earlier this month, Sharp, Samsung, Hitachi and other LCD panel producers settled out their price fixing lawsuit with direct purchasers (read: TV and computer monitor manufacturers) for $388 million. So the story goes, the companies colluded to assure higher prices on LCDs sold between 1999 and 2006. Now, those same seven companies have settled up with indirect LCD purchasers -- aka the folks buying TVs and PCs -- to the tune of $539 million. Samsung, Sharp and Chimei are dishing out the lion"s share of settlement dollars at $240 million, $115 million and $110 million, respectively, with the other companies kicking in between $2.8 and $39 million for their (allegedly) anti-competitive ways. Of course, the settlement isn"t final until it receives the court"s blessing, but you can see what the judge will likely be rubber-stamping at the source below.

All products recommended by Engadget are selected by our editorial team, independent of our parent company. Some of our stories include affiliate links. If you buy something through one of these links, we may earn an affiliate commission. All prices are correct at the time of publishing.

TFT-LCDs are used in flat-panel televisions as well as computer monitors, laptop computers, mobile phones, personal digital assistants, and other devices. Plaintiffs charged that defendants conspired to raise and fix the prices of TFT-LCD panels and certain products containing those panels for over a decade, resulting in overcharges to purchasers of those panels and products.

In March 2010, the Court certified two nationwide classes of persons and entities that directly purchased TFT-LCDs from January 1, 1999 through December 31, 2006, one class of panel purchasers, and one class of buyers of laptop computers, computer monitors, and televisions that contained TFT-LCDs.

Over the course of the litigation, the classes reached settlements with all defendants except Toshiba. The case against Toshiba proceeded to trial. In July 2012, the jury found that Toshiba participated in the price-fixing conspiracy. The case was subsequently settled, bringing the total settlements in the litigation to over $470 million.

Price fixing is an anticompetitive agreement between participants on the same side in a market to buy or sell a product, service, or commodity only at a fixed price, or maintain the market conditions such that the price is maintained at a given level by controlling supply and demand.

The intent of price fixing may be to push the price of a product as high as possible, generally leading to profits for all sellers but may also have the goal to fix, peg, discount, or stabilize prices. The defining characteristic of price fixing is any agreement regarding price, whether expressed or implied.

Price fixing requires a conspiracy between sellers or buyers. The purpose is to coordinate pricing for mutual benefit of the traders. For example, manufacturers and retailers may conspire to sell at a common "retail" price; set a common minimum sales price, where sellers agree not to discount the sales price below the agreed-to minimum price; buy the product from a supplier at a specified maximum price; adhere to a price book or list price; engage in cooperative price advertising; standardize financial credit terms offered to purchasers; use uniform trade-in allowances; limit discounts; discontinue a free service or fix the price of one component of an overall service; adhere uniformly to previously-announced prices and terms of sale; establish uniform costs and markups; impose mandatory surcharges; purposefully reduce output or sales in order to charge higher prices; or purposefully share or pool markets, territories, or customers.

Not all similar prices or price changes at the same time are price fixing. These situations are often normal market phenomena. For example, the price of agricultural products such as wheat basically do not differ too much, because such agricultural products have no characteristics and are essentially the same, and their price will only change slightly at the same time. If a natural disaster occurs, the price of all affected wheat will rise at the same time. And the increase in consumer demand may also cause the prices of products with limited supply to rise at the same time.

In neo-classical economics, price fixing is inefficient. The anti-competitive agreement by producers to fix prices above the market price transfers some of the consumer surplus to those producers and also results in a deadweight loss.

International price fixing by private entities can be prosecuted under the antitrust laws of many countries. Examples of prosecuted international cartels are those that controlled the prices and output of lysine, citric acid, graphite electrodes, and bulk vitamins.

Criminal prosecutions must be handled by the U.S. Department of Justice, but the Federal Trade Commission also has jurisdiction for civil antitrust violations. Many state attorneys general also bring antitrust cases and have antitrust offices, such as Virginia, New York, and California. Further, where price fixing is used as an artifice to defraud a U.S. government agency into paying more than market value, the U.S. attorney may proceed under the False Claims Act.

Under American law, exchanging prices among competitors can also violate the antitrust laws. That includes exchanging prices with the intent to fix prices or the exchange affecting the prices individual competitors set. Proof that competitors have shared prices can be used as part of the evidence of an illegal price fixing agreement.

Since 1997, US courts have divided price fixing into two categories: vertical and horizontal maximum price fixing.State Oil Co. v. Khan,US Supreme Court held that vertical price fixing is no longer considered a per se violation of the Sherman Act, but horizontal price fixing is still considered a breach of the Sherman Act. Also in 2008, the defendants of United States v LG Display Co., United States v. Chunghwa Picture Tubes, and United States v. Sharp Corporation, heard in the Northern District of California, agreed to pay a total sum of $585 million to settle their prosecutions for conspiring to fix prices of liquid crystal display panels. That was the second largest amount awarded under the Sherman Act in history.

In Canada, it is an indictable criminal offence under Section 45 of the Competition Act. Bid rigging is considered a form of price fixing and is illegal in both the United States (s.1 Sherman Act) and Canada (s.47 Competition Act). In the United States, agreements to fix, raise, lower, stabilize, or otherwise set a price are illegal per se.

Although price fixing usually means sellers agreeing on price, it can also include agreements among buyers to fix the price at which they will buy products.

Price fixing is illegal in Australia under the Competition and Consumer Act 2010, with considerably similar prohibitions to the US and Canadian prohibitions. The Act is administered and enforced by the Australian Competition & Consumer Commission. Section 48 of the Competition and Consumer Act 2010 (Cth) explicitly states, "A corporation shall not engage in the practise of resale price maintenance." A broader understanding of the statutory provision is in Section 96(3)of the Competition and Consumer Act 2010 (Cth), which broadly defines what can be resale price maintenance.

New Zealand law prohibits price fixing, among most other anti-competitive behaviours under the Commerce Act 1986. The act covers practices similar to that of US and Canadian law, and it is enforced by the Commerce Commission.

The Net Book Agreement was a public agreement between UK booksellers from 1900 to 1991 to sell new books only at the recommended retail price to protect the revenues of smaller bookshops. The agreement collapsed in 1991, when the large book chain Dillons began discounting books, followed by rival Waterstones.

However, price-fixing is still legal in the magazine and newspaper distribution industry, and sometimes in the motion picture industry.Office of Fair Trading has given its approval to the status quo.

When the agreement to control price is sanctioned by a multilateral treaty or is entered by sovereign nations as opposed to individual firms, the cartel may be protected from lawsuits and criminal antitrust prosecution. That is why OPEC, the global petroleum cartel, has not been prosecuted or successfully sued under US antitrust law.

International airline tickets have their prices fixed by agreement with the IATA, a practice for which there is a specific exemption in antitrust law.

Between 1995 and 2000 music companies were found to have used illegal marketing agreements such as minimum advertised pricing to artificially inflate prices of compact discs in order to end price wars by discounters such as Best Buy and Target in the early 1990s. It is estimated customers were overcharged by nearly $500 million and up to $5 per album. A settlement in 2002 included the music publishers and distributors; Sony Music, Warner Music, Bertelsmann Music Group, EMI Music, Universal Music as well as retailers Musicland, Trans World Entertainment and Tower Records. In restitution for price fixing they agreed to pay a $67.4 million fine distribute $75.7 million in CDs to public and non-profit groups.

In October 2005, the Korean company Samsung pleaded guilty to conspiring with other companies, including Infineon and Hynix Semiconductor, to fix the price of dynamic random access memory (DRAM) chips. Samsung was the third company to be charged in connection with the international cartel and was fined $300 million, the second largest antitrust penalty in US history.

In March 2018, the European Commission fined eight firms, mostly Japanese companies, €254 million for operating an illegal price cartel for capacitors.Nippon Chemi-Con which was fined €98 million and Hitachi Chemical which was fined €18 million.

In 2006, the government of France fined 13 perfume brands and three vendors for price collusion between 1997 and 2000. The brands include L"Oréal (€4.1 million), Chanel (€3.0 million), LVMH"s Sephora (€9.4 million), and Hutchison Whampoa"s Marionnaud (€12.8 million).

In 2008 in the US, LG Display Co., Chunghwa Picture Tubes and Sharp Corp., agreed to plead guilty and pay $585 million in criminal finesliquid crystal display panels.

In 2010, the EU fined LG Display €215 million for its part in the LCD price fixing scheme.Chimei Innolux, AU Optronics, Chunghwa Picture Tubes Ltd., and HannStar Display Corp.

In late 2005/early 2006, Lufthansa and Virgin Atlantic came forward about their involvement in large price-fixing schemes for cargo and passenger surcharges in which 21 airlines were involved since 2000 (amongst which were British Airways, Korean Air, and Air France-KLM). U.S. Department of Justice fined the airlines a total of $1.7 billion, charged 19 executives with wrongdoing and four received prison terms.

In December 2008, the New Zealand Commerce Commission filed legal proceedings against 13 airlines in the New Zealand High Court. According to the Commission, the carriers "colluded to raise the price of [freight] by imposing fuel charges for more than seven years".Air New Zealand was the final airline of the 13 to settle.

An attempt to fix the price of tuna resulted in a $25 million fine for Bumble Bee Foods in 2017 and a $100 million fine for StarKist in 2020. Christopher Lischewski, the former CEO of Bumble Bee, was sentenced to 40 months in jail and fined $100,000 for his 2010–2013 involvement.

If the price of a new supplier is lower than the usual corporate bidding price, the reason may be that there is a collusion of bidding among existing companies.

If the price of a new supplier drops significantly after bidding, the reason may be that some suppliers have been colluding and the new supplier has forced them to compete.

When prices are determined between various companies, it may affect consumers" choices to a certain extent, and affect small businesses that rely on these suppliers.

Taking freight as an example, many products are now transported by freight through various channels. If the freight price is artificially increased, it will have an impact on the entire supply chain. For example, it will cause the price of goods and services to increase, and it will also affect consumers" choices.

Economic liberals believe that price fixing is a voluntary and consensual activity between parties that should be free from government compulsion and government interference. At times price fixing ensures a stable market for both consumers and producers. Any short-term benefit of increased price competition will force some producers out of the market and cause product shortages and prices for consumers to rise. In the end price-fixing legislation forces producers out of a market because it can"t compete with the biggest discounter and the market winds up a monopoly anyway.

The TFT-LCD (Flat Panel) Antitrust Litigationclass-action lawsuit regarding the worldwide conspiracy to coordinate the prices of Thin-Film Transistor-Liquid Crystal Display (TFT-LCD) panels, which are used to make laptop computers, computer monitors and televisions, between 1999 and 2006. In March 2010, Judge Susan Illston certified two nationwide classes of persons and entities that directly and indirectly purchased TFT-LCDs – for panel purchasers and purchasers of TFT-LCD integrated products; the litigation was followed by multiple suits.

TFT-LCDs are used in flat-panel televisions, laptop and computer monitors, mobile phones, personal digital assistants, semiconductors and other devices;

In mid-2006, the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) Antitrust Division requested FBI assistance in investigating LCD price-fixing. In December 2006, authorities in Japan, Korea, the European Union and the United States revealed a probe into alleged anti-competitive activity among LCD panel manufacturers.

The companies involved, which later became the Defendants, were Taiwanese companies AU Optronics (AUO), Chi Mei, Chunghwa Picture Tubes (Chunghwa), and HannStar; Korean companies LG Display and Samsung; and Japanese companies Hitachi, Sharp and Toshiba.cartel which took place between January 1, 1999, through December 31, 2006, and which was designed to illegally reduce competition and thus inflate prices for LCD panels. The companies exchanged information on future production planning, capacity use, pricing and other commercial conditions.European Commission concluded that the companies were aware they were violating competition rules, and took steps to conceal the venue and results of the meetings; a document by the conspirators requested everybody involved "to take care of security/confidentiality matters and to limit written communication".

This price-fixing scheme manipulated the playing field for businesses that abide by the rules, and left consumers to pay artificially higher costs for televisions, computers and other electronics.

Companies directly affected by the LCD price-fixing conspiracy, as direct victims of the cartel, were some of the largest computer, television and cellular telephone manufacturers in the world. These direct action plaintiffs included AT&T Mobility, Best Buy,Costco Wholesale Corporation, Good Guys, Kmart Corp, Motorola Mobility, Newegg, Sears, and Target Corp.Clayton Act (15 U.S.C. § 26) to prevent Defendants from violating Section 1 of the Sherman Act (15 U.S.C. § 1), as well as (b) 23 separate state-wide classes based on each state"s antitrust/consumer protection class action law.

In November 2008, LG, Chunghwa, Hitachi, Epson, and Chi Mei pleaded guilty to criminal charges of fixing prices of TFT-LCD panels sold in the U.S. and agreed to pay criminal fines (see chart).

The South Korea Fair Trade Commission launched legal proceedings as well. It concluded that the companies involved met more than once a month and more than 200 times from September 2001 to December 2006, and imposed fines on the LCD manufacturers.

Sharp Corp. pleaded guilty to three separate conspiracies to fix the prices of TFT-LCD panels sold to Dell Inc., Apple Computer Inc. and Motorola Inc., and was sentenced to pay a $120 million criminal fine,

Seven executives from Japanese and South Korean LCD companies were indicted in the U.S. Four were charged with participating as co-conspirators in the conspiracy and sentenced to prison terms – including LG"s Vice President of Monitor Sales, Chunghwa"s chairman, its chief executive officer, and its Vice President of LCD Sales – for "participating in meetings, conversations and communications in Taiwan, South Korea and the United States to discuss the prices of TFT-LCD panels; agreeing during these meetings, conversations and communications to charge prices of TFT-LCD panels at certain predetermined levels; issuing price quotations in accordance with the agreements reached; exchanging information on sales of TFT-LCD panels for the purpose of monitoring and enforcing adherence to the agreed-upon prices; and authorizing, ordering and consenting to the participation of subordinate employees in the conspiracy."

On December 8, 2010, the European Commission announced it had fined six of the LCD companies involved in a total of €648 million (Samsung Electronics received full immunity under the commission"s 2002 Leniency Notice) – LG Display, AU Optronics, Chimei, Chunghwa Picture and HannStar Display Corporation.

On July 3, 2012, a U.S. federal jury ruled that the remaining defendant, Toshiba Corporation, which denied any wrongdoing, participated in the conspiracy to fix prices of TFT-LCDs and returned a verdict in favor of the plaintiff class. Following the trial, Toshiba agreed to resolve the case by paying the class $30 million.

SEATTLE —Attorney General Bob Ferguson today announced the claims process for consumers to recover their share of a $63 million recovery in a price-fixing enforcement action brought by the Attorney General’s Office.

In May 2015, the AGO announced it recovered over $63 million from nine Liquid Crystal Display (LCD) screen manufacturers, whose price-fixing conspiracy drove up prices consumers paid on electronic items. The bulk of the money recovered will be returned to consumers who purchased products containing LCDs.

From 1998–2006, consumers in Washington and throughout the world were significantly overcharged every time they bought a product with a liquid crystal display — or LCD — screen, because of a conspiracy by the world’s largest LCD manufacturers. For some products, this scheme may have increased the price consumers paid by as much as 20 percent.

The AGO cautions consumers that a third-party agent, Financial Recovery Services, has set up a website to file claims on behalf of consumers but will charge one-third of the recovery money to do so. Consumers can file their own claims for free at the official government website: www.lcdsettlement.atg.wa.gov.

Washington consumers and businesses that bought televisions, monitors, notebook computers, color-screen cell phones, or color-screen iPods that contained a flat panel screen may be eligible for a refund. Eligible consumers include those who:

Products containing an LCD flat panel during the relevant time period include most televisions referred to as LCD or LED TVs, flat-screen monitors, notebook computers, color-screen cell phones purchased beginning in 2004 and color-screen iPods.

The amount consumers and businesses could expect to receive will vary depending on the product(s) purchased. The maximum is $108 per LCD television, $70 per flat-screen monitor and $75 per notebook computer, with lesser amounts for color-screen cell phones and color-screen iPods.

Consumers must submit a claim form online or by mail. Claim forms are available at www.lcdsettlement.atg.wa.gov, or by calling 1-866-778-9468. The deadline to submit a claim is June 17, 2016.(UPDATE:  Deadline extended to Sept. 30, 2016).

TORONTO -- A group of major electronics companies and their affiliates accused of fixing the price for liquid crystal display panels used in TVs, computers monitors and laptops have agreed to pay a total of more than $37 million to settle a class action lawsuit.

Siskinds LLP, which launched the suit, said Wednesday that consumers who bought LCD panels or products, regardless of the manufacturer or brand, between 1998 to 2006 are eligible for a share of the settlement. It"s expected that those making valid claims will receive a minimum payment of $25.

The long running DOJ investigation focused on the world’s leading manufacturers of LCD panels, including AUO, Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd., LG Display Co. Ltd., Sharp Corp., Chunghwa Picture Tubes Ltd., Chi Mai Optoelectronics and Hannstar Display Corp. DOJ filings in the AUO litigation reveal that Samsung’s early approach to DOJ about the ongoing price fixing conspiracy initiated the government’s criminal investigation in 2006. By coming forward first and early, Samsung was granted conditional leniency by DOJ and minimized its exposure in the case.

LCD panels are used in computer monitors and notebooks, televisions and other electronic devices. These finished products are then sold in the United States and around the world. By the time the conspiracy ended in 2006, DOJ estimated that the worldwide market for LCD panels was valued at approximately $70 billion annually. The LCD price fixing conspiracy affected some of the largest computer manufacturers in the world, including Hewlett Packard, Dell and Apple. As key purchasers of LCD panels, these companies were forced to pay the higher fixed prices for LCD panels which in turn increased the retail prices of computers, notebooks, TVs and other consumer products sold in the United States.

The defendants were central figures in a massive, five-year global price fixing conspiracy that caused enormous and widespread harm affecting virtually every purchaser of products containing LCD panels. H. B. Chen and Hui Hsiang were top executives at AUO and … [its American subsidiary]… and created a culture of criminal collusion at their companies…. And the defendants, unlike their coconspirators, are remorseless, having refused to accept responsibility or to provide any assistance that would justify a reduction in their sentences. at p.1.

AUO, a Taiwanese company, and its American subsidiary, became one to the world’s leading manufacturers of LCD panels. AUO chose to fight the DOJ charges against it rather than settle early as did most of the coconspirators. After an eight-week trial, AUO, its American subsidiary and the two former executives were found guilty by a jury on March 13, 1012. The indictment charged that AUO participated in the worldwide conspiracy form September 14, 2001 to December 1, 2006 and its subsidiary joined the conspiracy as early as spring 2003. The jury found that the convicted companies and the two former executives fixed the prices of LCD panels sold in the United States. The jury also found that the prices were fixed during monthly meetings with their competitors secretly held in hotel conference room, karaoke bars and tea rooms around Taiwan.

To date, DOJ’s ongoing LCD panel price fixing investigation has generated well over $1.3 billion in criminal fines and netted eight companies for criminal price fixing. All together, DOJ reports that 22 LCD executives have been charged. Including the two AUO executives, a total of 12 executives have been sentenced to serve a combined total of 4,871 days behind bars in a federal prison.

Challenging the DOJ as the lone targeted defendant in a massive criminal price fixing conspiracy where other coconspirators have pled or settled, then showing no remorse and little cooperation with DOJ prosecutors may be a risky strategy to pursue. Samsung may be the better example here to follow, if it is possible. When price fixing is discovered on such a massive scale, report it quickly and try to be the first at DOJ’s door. With this win under its belt, including the huge fines and the jail times sought and imposed, expect the DOJ going forward to seek bigger and bigger criminal fines and longer and longer sentences as a deterrent to future global price fixing conspiracies.