This Is What We Do. Hausfeld's U.S. competition/antitrust litigation experience – pursuing a corporation's claims through individual representation, group or class litigation, settlement, negotiation, trial, or appeals – is unparalleled.
Few if any U.S. law firms are litigating more competition/antitrust cases on behalf of corporations injured by anticompetitive activity than Hausfeld. Not only trusted by business clients, federal courts have specifically appointed and trusted us to pursue recoveries for victims of antitrust cartels in more than 30 cases in the last ten years. Recognizing the firm's antitrust prowess, the Global Competition Review has noted that "The Hausfeld team has established themselves as one of – if not the – top Plaintiffs' antitrust firm in the U.S." The Legal 500 likewise consistently ranks Hausfeld among the top five firms in the United States for antitrust litigation – plaintiff representation. Naming Hausfeld to its Plaintiffs' Hot List for the third year in a row in 2014, The National Law Journal reported that Hausfeld "punches above its weight" and "isn't afraid to take on firms far larger than its size and deliver results, especially in antitrust litigation."
Hausfeld lawyers have a consistent track record of:
Successfully litigating and resolving the world's most significant plaintiffs' private competition/antitrust enforcement actions, recovering billions of dollars for our clients and businesses we have been appointed by courts to represent;
Building a talented team of professionals representing one of the largest plaintiffs' private competition/antitrust enforcement teams in the U.S.;
Working cooperatively and efficiently with our European partners to offer our clients a coordinated approach to their global claims.
Clients impacted by cartels or other anticompetitive conduct rely on us for our antitrust expertise and our history of success both in the courtroom and at the negotiation table.
In this consolidated litigation alleging a price-fixing conspiracy between the leading packaged tuna manufacturers—Chicken of the Sea, StarKist, and Bumble Bee, and their parent companies—Hausfeld LLP is the Court-appointed sole interim lead counsel for a proposed class of Direct Purchaser Plaintiffs.
Hausfeld is Co-Lead Counsel for a proposed class of broiler chicken growers in an antitrust action alleging that vertically-integrated poultry companies formed a nationwide conspiracy to suppress and maintain broiler chicken growers’ compensation below competitive levels.
Hausfeld was among the counsel for a putative class of direct purchaser plaintiffs in this antitrust class action in which plaintiffs alleged price-fixing by the leading manufacturers of TFT-LCD panels.
In this multidistrict litigation, plaintiffs include a class of investors who transacted in VIX instruments alleging that a number of trading firms and financial institutions conspired to post bids on certain S&P 500 options during a fixed, short window of nontrading hours to influence the CBOE-Special Opening Quotation (“SOQ”) formula that calculates settlement prices of VIX instruments.
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).
Hausfeld represents a class of hospitals, laboratories and donor blood centers in this antitrust class action in which plaintiffs allege that defendants, the two dominant companies in the U.S. blood reagents industry...
In this consolidated litigation alleging a price-fixing conspiracy between the leading manufacturers of Inductors, Hausfeld LLP is the Court-appointed interim co-lead counsel along with Bleichmar Fonti & Auld LLP for the proposed class of Direct Purchaser Plaintiffs.
Settlements of nearly $32 million have been reached with defendant manufacturers of optical disc drives (drives that play CDs, DVDs or Blu-Ray discs) that are used in or with computers and other types of equipment conspired to fix prices for such drives.
Hausfeld, appointed as sole Lead Counsel in this multidistrict litigation, represents a class of purchasers of television advertising spots against broadcast giants in connection with claims that the television station owners conspired to artificially inflate prices for television advertisements in violation of the federal antitrust laws.
In the U.S., in In re Payment Card Interchange and Merchant Discount Antitrust Litigation, Master Docket No. 05-1720 (E.D.N.Y.), the Court approved a Class Action Settlement on December 13, 2013 among merchants, Visa, MasterCard, and other Defendants in the lawsuit.
Hausfeld serves as co-lead counsel for two certified classes of businesses that directly purchased bulk vitamins and were overcharged as a result of a ten year global price-fixing and market allocation cartel. The court approved eight major settlements between certain vitamin defendants and the Class Plaintiffs, including a landmark partial settlement of $1.1 billion.
Hausfeld, appointed as Lead Counsel in this multidistrict litigation, represents a class of merchant plaintiffs against American Express Company and American Express Travel Related Services Company, Inc. (collectively, “Amex”) in connection with claims that Amex’s Non-Discrimination Provisions (or “Anti-Steering Rules”) unreasonably restrain interbrand price competition among credit and charge card networks. See In re American Express Anti-Steering Rules Antitrust Litigation, No. 11-MD-2221 (NGG)(RER) (E.D.N.Y.).
In re Farm-Raised Salmon and Salmon Products Litigation, Case No. 19-21551-CV-ALTONAGA (S.D. Fl.) – In this class action litigation alleging a price-fixing conspiracy between the leading producers of farm-raised Atlantic Salmon, Hausfeld LLP, the first firm to file a complaint, is the Court-appointed interim co-lead counsel along with Podhurst Orseck, P.A. for the proposed class of Direct Purchaser Plaintiffs.
Hausfeld represents a class of end payors who allege that Celgene engaged in a multi-faceted scheme to maintain its monopoly and interfere with competitors’ efforts to enter the market with generic versions of Thalomid and Revlimid. Plaintiffs allege that Celgene acted to delay the onset of generic competition and charged users billions of dollars for these products.
Hausfeld represents a class of direct purchasers of fresh and process potatoes bringing claims against potato growers, their cooperatives, processors, and packers that violated federal antitrust laws by conspiring to manipulate the price and supply of potatoes. federal antitrust laws by conspiring to manipulate the price and supply of potatoes.
Hausfeld served as co-lead counsel in this antitrust class action brought in September of 2004 on behalf of a genetic diagnostic laboratory that purchased Thermus aquaticus DNA polymerase ("Taq") directly from defendants Roche and Applera and their subsidiaries, affiliates, and predecessors.
Hausfeld serves as co-lead counsel in this multidistrict litigation, representing a class of direct purchasers of the industrial chemicals methylene diphenyl diisocyanate (MDI) and toluene diisocyanate (TDI) in claims against major industrial suppliers for conspiring to artificially inflate prices in violation of federal antitrust law. See In Re: Diisocyanates Antitrust Litigation, No. 18-mc-01001 (W.D. Pa.).
Hausfeld is one of the Co-Lead Counsel representing direct purchasers of shell eggs and processed egg products who allege that a near industry-wide price fixing conspiracy artificially raised the price of eggs over the past several years.
Hausfeld is Co-Lead Counsel for a putative class of direct purchaser plaintiffs in this antitrust price-fixing class action in which plaintiffs allege that manufacturers of processed tomato products unlawfully conspired to fix prices in violation of the federal Sherman Act.
Hausfeld serves as co-lead class counsel representing a proposed class of tax payers who became delinquent on their real property tax obligations, often as a result of disability and/or economic hardship...
Hausfeld represents direct purchaser plaintiffs in the first antitrust case to successfully garner a jury verdict in the United States against Chinese manufacturers. The plaintiffs alleged that Chinese pharmaceutical companies Hebei Welcome Pharmaceutical Co. Ltd., Jiangsu Jiangshan Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd., JSPC America, Inc., Northeast Pharmaceutical (Group) Co. Ltd., Weisheng Pharmaceutical Co. Ltd., Shijiazhuang Pharmaceutical (USA), Inc., and China Pharmaceutical Group Ltd. conspired to fix prices and control export output of Vitamin C beginning in 2001.
Hausfeld served as co-lead counsel for a class of direct purchaser plaintiffs of Korean Ramen Noodles in the action In re Korean Ramen Antitrust Litigation,13-cv-04115-WHO-DMR, litigated in a federal district court in San Francisco, California.
Hausfeld has been appointed co-lead counsel for a putative class of direct purchaser plaintiffs in this antitrust class action alleging a conspiracy by airlines to fix the prices of passenger fares and/or fuel surcharges for trans-Pacific air passenger transportation services to and from the United States in violation of the federal Sherman Act.
On July 2, 2015, Hausfeld filed one of the first antitrust class action complaints in the country on behalf of domestic air passengers alleging that the four major U.S. passenger air carriers—United, American, Delta and Southwest—conspired to artificially inflate domestic airfares by, inter alia, colluding to restrict their respective capacity
Hausfeld, on behalf of purchasers of contact lenses subject to Unilateral Pricing Policies, filed a class action complaint against these manufacturers and ABB Optical Group, which is the self-proclaimed “largest distributor of soft contact lenses” in America.
Ed O’Bannon and thousands of former basketball and football players allege that the NCAA, its members, and its commercial partners violated federal antitrust law by unlawfully foreclosing former players from receiving any compensation related to the use of their images and likenesses.