Skip to main content

CRTs (Cathode Ray Tubes)

Related Lawyers: Michael P. Lehmann, Christopher L. Lebsock
Related Practice Areas: Antitrust / Competition

In re: Cathode Ray Tube (CRT) Antitrust Litigation, MDL No. 1917 (N.D. Cal.) - Hausfeld is among the counsel for a putative class of direct purchaser plaintiffs in this antitrust price-fixing class action in which plaintiffs allege price-fixing by the leading manufacturers of: (a) color picture tubes (“CPTs”), which are cathode ray tubes (“CRTs”) used in color televisions and similar devices; (b) color display tubes (“CDTs”), which are CRTs used in color computer monitors or similar devices; and (c) electronic devices containing CPTs (such as televisions) or CDTs (such as computer monitors).

The manufacturer defendants initially sued are based in China, Hong Kong, India, Japan, Malaysia, The Netherlands, South Korea, Taiwan, Thailand, and the United States, and control the majority of the CRT Product industry, a multibillion dollar market, which in 1999 alone generated over $19 billion dollars in gross revenue. During the class period, virtually every household in the United States owns, or has owned, at least one CRT Product. A separate suit was filed against two additional defendants—Thomson and Mitsubishi

Settlements with Chunghwa ($10 million) and Philips ($15 million) were finally approved on September 20, 2012. A settlement with Panasonic ($17 million) was finally approved on December 27, 2012. A settlement with the LG entities ($25 million) was finally approved on March 18, 2013. A settlement with Toshiba ($13.5 million) was finally approved on July 23, 2013. Settlements were also reached with Hitachi and Samsung SDI for $13.45 million and $33 million, respectively. Both were finally approved in January of 2016. A settlement was reached in December of 2014 with Thomson for $9.75 million. Final approval was granted in January of 2016.. In October of 2016, a settlement was reached with Mitsubishi for $75 million, which has also been finally approved. More on these settlements can be found at

The sole remaining defendant is Irico. In August of 2017, the Direct Purchaser Plaintiffs filed a motion for default judgment against it, and Irico opposed such relief.  Since then, the default has been lifted and the case is proceeding.

Supporting Documents

Related Lawyers