Top tire makers are sued in US over alleged price fixing
By Mike Scarcella
Feb 7 (Reuters) -Major tire manufacturers including Pirelli PIRC.MI, Continental CONG.DE, Michelin MICP.PA and Nokian TYRES.HE were sued on Wednesday in U.S. federal court for alleged price-fixing, days after European Union competition authorities announced an investigation into a possible cartel.
The lawsuit was filed by a California resident in Manhattan federal court and seeks class-action status for U.S. purchasers of tires from the tire makers since January 2020. Other companies sued in the case include Bridgestone 5108.T and Goodyear GT.O.
The six companies and a group of affiliated entities are accused of artificially inflating the price of new replacement tires in the United States for vehicles including cars, trucks and buses.
Contintental said it has a "zero-tolerance policy when it comes to compliance and thoroughly follow up on and investigate all alleged allegations."
The other defendants either declined to comment or did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
Milan, Italy-based Pirelli previously said it had acted "always in total compliance with all rules and regulations.” France’s Michelin has said it strictly complies with competition rules.
Attorneys for the plaintiff did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
The European Commission, which is the EU’s antitrust enforcement arm, on Jan. 30 announced its investigation of leading tire manufacturers.
"The Commission is concerned that price coordination took place amongst the inspected companies, including via public communications," the EU executive said in a statement.
It is common for private civil antitrust lawsuits to follow European Commission cartel investigations.
Federal courts in the United States have been flooded with lawsuits against major building materials companies after the commission in November said it was investigating potential price-fixing in the industry.
The tire industry lawsuit alleged the “U.S. tire industry for years has been highly concentrated, and there is a history of antitrust violations by tire manufacturers.”
The lawsuit seeks to recover unspecified three-fold damages and an injunction against alleged anticompetitive practices.
The case is Rena Sampayan v. Continental AG et al, U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York, No. 1:24-cv-00881.
For plaintiffs: Gregory Linkh of Glancy Prongay & Murray; and Dena Sharp of Girard Sharp
For defendants: No appearances yet
Read more:
Pirelli, Continental, Michelin and Nokian targeted in EU raids
France's Saint-Gobain, others hit with price-fixing claims in US court
Flavor, fragrance makers face wave of US antitrust lawsuits after EU cartel raids
Reporting by Mike Scarcella. Additional reporting by Jonathan Stempel in New York.
Related Assets
Latest News
Disclaimer: The XM Group entities provide execution-only service and access to our Online Trading Facility, permitting a person to view and/or use the content available on or via the website, is not intended to change or expand on this, nor does it change or expand on this. Such access and use are always subject to: (i) Terms and Conditions; (ii) Risk Warnings; and (iii) Full Disclaimer. Such content is therefore provided as no more than general information. Particularly, please be aware that the contents of our Online Trading Facility are neither a solicitation, nor an offer to enter any transactions on the financial markets. Trading on any financial market involves a significant level of risk to your capital.
All material published on our Online Trading Facility is intended for educational/informational purposes only, and does not contain – nor should it be considered as containing – financial, investment tax or trading advice and recommendations; or a record of our trading prices; or an offer of, or solicitation for, a transaction in any financial instruments; or unsolicited financial promotions to you.
Any third-party content, as well as content prepared by XM, such as: opinions, news, research, analyses, prices and other information or links to third-party sites contained on this website are provided on an “as-is” basis, as general market commentary, and do not constitute investment advice. To the extent that any content is construed as investment research, you must note and accept that the content was not intended to and has not been prepared in accordance with legal requirements designed to promote the independence of investment research and as such, it would be considered as marketing communication under the relevant laws and regulations. Please ensure that you have read and understood our Notification on Non-Independent Investment. Research and Risk Warning concerning the foregoing information, which can be accessed here.
