UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN 

SOUTHERN DIVISION 

In re Automotive Parts Antitrust Litigation 

In re: Occupant Safety Restraint Systems 

This document relates to: 

Rush Truck Centers of Arizona, Inc.; Rush Truck Centers 

of California, Inc.; Rush Truck Centers of Colorado, Inc.; 

Rush Truck Centers of Florida, Inc.; Rush Truck Centers 

of Georgia, Inc.; Rush Truck Centers of Idaho, Inc.; Rush 

Truck Centers of Illinois, Inc.; Rush Truck Centers of 

Indiana, Inc.; Rush Truck Centers of Kansas, Inc.; Rush 

Truck Centers of Missouri, Inc.; Rush Truck Centers of 

North Carolina, Inc.; Rush Truck Centers of Ohio, Inc.; 

Rush Truck Centers of Oklahoma, Inc.; Rush Truck 

Centers of Oregon, Inc.; Rush Truck Centers of 

Tennessee, Inc.; Rush Truck Centers of Texas, LP.; Rush 

Truck Centers of Utah, Inc.; Rush Truck Centers of 

Virginia, Inc., on behalf of themselves and all others 

similarly situated, 

 Plaintiffs, 

 v. 

TRW Automotive Holdings Corp., TRW Deutschland 

Holding Gmbh, Takata Corp., TK Holdings, Inc., 

Autoliv, Inc., Autoliv ASP, Inc., Autoliv B.V. & Co. KG, 

Autoliv Japan Ltd., Tokai Rika Co., Ltd., and TRAM, 

Inc. d/b/a Tokai Rika U.S.A. Inc. 

 Defendants.

 

 Master File No. 12-md-02311 

 

 

 No: 

 Jury Trial Demanded 

TRUCK AND EQUIPMENT DEALERS 

CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT 

PLAINTIFFS Rush Truck Centers of Arizona, Inc. (“Rush AZ”), Rush Truck Centers of 

California, Inc. (“Rush CA”), Rush Truck Centers of Colorado, Inc. (“Rush CO”), Rush Truck 

Centers of Florida, Inc. (“Rush FL”), Rush Truck Centers of Georgia, Inc. (“Rush GA”), Rush 

Case 2:15-cv-12050-MOB-MKM ECF No. 1 filed 06/05/15 PageID.1 Page 1 of 103
 2 

Truck Centers of Idaho, Inc. (“Rush ID”), Rush Truck Centers of Illinois, Inc. (“Rush IL”), Rush 

Truck Centers of Indiana, Inc. (“Rush IN”), Rush Truck Centers of Kansas, Inc. (“Rush KS”), 

Rush Truck Centers of Missouri, Inc. (“Rush MO”), Rush Truck Centers of North Carolina, Inc. 

(“Rush NC”), Rush Truck Centers of Ohio, Inc. (“Rush OH”), Rush Truck Centers of Oklahoma, 

Inc. (“Rush OK”), Rush Truck Centers of Oregon, Inc. (“Rush OR”), Rush Truck Centers of 

Tennessee, Inc. (“Rush TN”), Rush Truck Centers of Texas, LP. (“Rush TX”), Rush Truck 

Centers of Utah, Inc. (“Rush UT”), and Rush Truck Centers of Virginia, Inc. (“Rush VA”), 

(collectively “Plaintiffs”) file this Complaint on behalf of themselves and all other similarly 

situated dealers (the “Classes” as defined below) of medium-duty (Class 4, 5, 6, & 7) trucks and 

heavy-duty (Class 8) trucks, buses, commercial vehicles (excluding automobiles, light trucks, 

vans, sports utility vehicles, and/or similar motor vehicles sold by automobile dealers), 

construction equipment, mining equipment, agricultural equipment, railway vehicles, and other 

similar vehicles (collectively, “Trucks and Equipment”). 

Plaintiffs bring this class action for damages, injunctive relief, and other relief pursuant to 

federal antitrust laws and state antitrust, unfair competition, and consumer protection laws, 

demand a trial by jury, and allege as follows: 

NATURE OF ACTION 

1. Plaintiffs bring this lawsuit as a proposed class action against the Defendants 

(defined below), manufacturers, and suppliers of Occupant Safety Restraint Systems (defined 

below) globally and in the United States for engaging in a lengthy conspiracy to suppress and 

eliminate competition in the vehicle parts industry by agreeing to rig bids for, and to fix, 

stabilize, and maintain the prices of these products, which were sold to vehicle manufacturers in 

the United States and elsewhere. The Defendants’ conspiracy successfully targeted the United 

Case 2:15-cv-12050-MOB-MKM ECF No. 1 filed 06/05/15 PageID.2 Page 2 of 103
 3 

States vehicle industry, raising prices for truck and equipment manufacturers, truck and 

equipment dealers, and consumers. 

2. “Occupant Safety Restraint Systems” are generally comprised of the parts in a 

vehicle that protect drivers and passengers from bodily harm. Types of different Occupant 

Safety Restraint Systems include seat belts, airbags, steering wheels, and steering systems. 

3. The “Class Period” refers to January 2003 to the present. 

4. The Defendants manufacture, market, and sell Occupant Safety Restraint Systems 

throughout the United States and in other countries. 

5. Vehicles containing Occupant Safety Restraint Systems, as well as Occupant 

Safety Restraint Systems themselves, made by Defendants, are sold in every state of the United 

States and the District of Columbia. 

6. The Defendants and other co-conspirators (as yet unknown) agreed, combined, 

and conspired to rig bids for, and to fix, stabilize, and maintain the prices of Occupant Safety 

Restraint Systems. They carried out their conspiracy by agreeing, during meetings and 

conversations, to allocate the supply of Occupant Safety Restraint Systems on a model-by-model 

basis. Defendants then sold Occupant Safety Restraint Systems at noncompetitive prices to 

vehicle manufacturers in the United States and elsewhere, for sale in United States. 

7. Competition authorities in the United States and the European Union have been 

investigating a conspiracy in the market for Occupant Safety Restraint Systems. As part of its 

criminal investigation, the United States Department of Justice (“DOJ”) is seeking information 

about anticompetitive conduct in the market for Occupant Safety Restraint Systems, and the 

Federal Bureau of Investigation (“FBI”) has participated in raids, pursuant to search warrants, 

carried out in at least some of the Defendants’ offices. The European Commission Competition 

Case 2:15-cv-12050-MOB-MKM ECF No. 1 filed 06/05/15 PageID.3 Page 3 of 103
 4 

Authority (“EC”) has also conducted investigations at the European offices of several of the 

Defendants. 

8. Defendant Autoliv, Inc. has agreed to plead guilty and pay a $14.5 million fine for 

its unlawful conduct in conspiring with others to suppress and eliminate competition in the 

vehicle parts industry by agreeing to rig bids for, and to fix, stabilize, and maintain the prices of, 

Occupant Safety Restraint Systems sold to certain vehicle manufacturers in the United States and 

elsewhere at various times from at least as early as March 2006 and continuing until at least 

February 2011. The combination and conspiracy engaged in by Defendant Autoliv, Inc. and its 

co-conspirators was in unreasonable restraint of interstate and foreign trade and commerce in 

violation of the Sherman Antitrust Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1. 

9. Defendant TRW Deutschland Holding Gmbh has agreed to plead guilty and to 

pay a total of $5.1 million in criminal fines concerning a two-count criminal investigation for 

fixing the prices of seatbelts, steering wheels and airbags. 

10. Defendant Tokai Rika Co., Ltd. has agreed to pay a $17.7 million fine and plead 

guilty to a two-count criminal information charging Tokai Rika with participating in a 

combination and conspiracy with its co-conspirators to suppress and eliminate competition in the 

parts industry by agreeing to rig bids for, and to fix, stabilize, and maintain the prices of Heater 

Control Panels sold to a manufacturer from at least September 2003 until at least February 2010 

in violation of the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1. 

11. Defendant Takata Corporation announced that it agreed to pay a $71.3 million 

criminal fine and plead guilty to a one-count criminal Information charging it with participating 

in a conspiracy to rig bids for, and to fix, stabilize, and maintain the prices of seatbelts sold to 

manufacturers, including, Toyota, Honda, Nissan, Fuji Heavy Industries, Ltd. (Subaru), and 

Case 2:15-cv-12050-MOB-MKM ECF No. 1 filed 06/05/15 PageID.4 Page 4 of 103
 5 

Mazda, in the United States and elsewhere from at least as early as January 1, 2003 and 

continuing until at least February 2011 in violation of the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1. 

12. These investigations and guilty pleas are part of and the result of a larger 

investigation by the DOJ, FBI, EC, and the Japan Fair Trade Commission (“JFTC”) into an 

expansive industry-wide vehicle components conspiracy, including many different component 

parts, including parts sold for Trucks and Equipment. 

13. On March 29, 2013, the Japan Fair Trade Commission (“JFTC”) issued cease and 

desist orders and surcharge payment orders based on violations of the Japan Antimonopoly Act 

against NTN Corp., NSK Ltd. and Nachi-Fujikoshi Corp., for conspiring to fix prices on 

“industrial machinery bearings and automotive bearings.” 

14. On March 19, 2014, the EC stated that it had found that SKF, Schaeffler, JTEKT 

Corporation, NSK Ltd., Nachi-Fujikoshi, and NTN had operated a cartel in the market for 

bearings sold to “car, truck and car part manufacturers” and fined all those companies (excluding 

JTEKT, which benefitted from immunity for having revealed the existence of a cartel to the EC) 

a collective EUR 953 million. 

15. On March 31, 2015, the Department of Justice announced that Robert Bosch 

GmbH had agreed to plead guilty and to pay a $57.8 million criminal fine for its role in a 

conspiracy to fix the prices for parts, including spark plugs, oxygen sensors and starter motors 

“sold to automobile and internal combustion engine manufacturers in the United States and 

elsewhere,” including parts sold to equipment manufacturer Andreas Stihl AG & Co., from at 

least as early as January 2000 until at least July 2011. 

Case 2:15-cv-12050-MOB-MKM ECF No. 1 filed 06/05/15 PageID.5 Page 5 of 103
 6 

16. Many of the companies involved in the government investigations into the 

industry wide components price fixing conspiracy, including the Defendants in this case, also 

manufacture and sell parts for Trucks and Equipment. 

17. Many of the Original Equipment Manufacturers (“OEMs’) who have been 

identified as the targets of the conspiracy, including Toyota, Honda, Ford, Chrysler, Mitsubishi 

Motors, Subaru, Fuji Heavy Industries, Isuzu and Nissan, manufacture and sell Trucks and/or 

Equipment directly or through subsidiaries or affiliated companies. 

18. As a direct result of the anti-competitive and unlawful conduct alleged herein, 

Plaintiffs and the Class paid artificially inflated prices for Occupant Safety Restraint Systems or 

for trucks and equipment containing Occupant Safety Restraint Systems. Plaintiffs and the 

members of the Classes have thereby suffered antitrust injury to their business or property. 

JURISDICTION AND VENUE 

19. Plaintiffs bring this action under Section 16 of the Clayton Act (15 U.S.C. § 26) to 

secure equitable and injunctive relief against Defendants for violating Section 1 of the Sherman 

Act (15 U.S.C. § 1). Plaintiffs also assert claims for actual and exemplary damages pursuant to 

state antitrust, unfair competition, and consumer protection laws, and seek to obtain restitution, 

recover damages, and secure other relief against Defendants for violation of those state laws. 

Plaintiffs and the Classes also seek attorneys’ fees, costs, and other expenses under federal and 

state law. 

20. This Court has jurisdiction over the subject matter of this action pursuant to 

Section 16 of the Clayton Act (15 U.S.C. § 26), Section 1 of the Sherman Act (15 U.S.C. § 1), 

and Title 28, United States Code, Sections 1331 and 1337. This Court has subject matter 

jurisdiction over the state law claims in this action, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1332(d) and 1367, 

because this is a class action in which the matter or controversy exceeds the sum of $5,000,000, 

Case 2:15-cv-12050-MOB-MKM ECF No. 1 filed 06/05/15 PageID.6 Page 6 of 103
 7 

exclusive of interests and costs, and in which some members of the proposed Classes are citizens 

of different states than some Defendants. 

21. Venue is proper in this district pursuant to Section 12 of the Clayton Act (15 

U.S.C. § 22), and 28 U.S.C. §§ 1391 (b), (c), and (d), because a substantial part of the events 

giving rise to Plaintiffs’ claims occurred in this district, a substantial portion of the affected 

interstate trade and commerce discussed below has been carried out in this district, and one or 

more of the Defendants reside, are licensed to do business in, are doing business in, had agents 

in, or are found or transact business in this district. 

22. This Court has in personam jurisdiction over each of the Defendants because each 

Defendant, either directly or through the ownership and/or control of its United States 

subsidiaries, inter alia: (a) transacted business in the United States, including in this district; (b) 

directly or indirectly sold or marketed substantial quantities of Occupant Safety Restraint 

Systems throughout the United States that were specifically designed for vehicles that were 

intended to be sold in the United States, including in this district; (c) had substantial aggregate 

contacts with the United States as a whole, including in this district; (d) was through its own 

actions and through the actions of its co-conspirators, engaged in an illegal price-fixing 

conspiracy that was directed at, and had a direct, substantial, reasonably foreseeable and intended 

effect of causing injury to, the business or property of persons and entities residing in, located in, 

or doing business throughout the United States; (e) targeted customers in the United States, 

including this district, and/or (f) engaged in actions in furtherance of an illegal conspiracy in this 

district either itself or through its co-conspirators. Defendants also conduct business throughout 

the United States, including in this district, and they have purposefully availed themselves of the 

laws of the United States and this district. 

Case 2:15-cv-12050-MOB-MKM ECF No. 1 filed 06/05/15 PageID.7 Page 7 of 103
 8 

23. Defendants engaged in conduct both inside and outside of the United States that 

caused direct, substantial, reasonably foreseeable, and intended anti-competitive effects upon 

interstate commerce within the United States and upon import trade and commerce into the 

United States. 

24. The activities of Defendants and their co-conspirators were within the flow of, 

were intended to have, and did have, a substantial effect on interstate commerce of the United 

States. Defendants’ products are sold in the flow of interstate commerce. 

25. Occupant Safety Restraint Systems manufactured abroad by Defendants and sold 

for use in vehicles either manufactured in the United States or manufactured abroad and sold in 

the United States are goods brought into the United States for sale and, therefore, constitute 

import commerce. To the extent any Occupant Safety Restraint Systems are purchased in the 

United States, and such Occupant Safety Restraint Systems do not constitute import commerce, 

Defendants’ unlawful activities with respect thereto, as more fully alleged herein during the 

Class Period, had, and continue to have, a direct, substantial, and reasonably foreseeable effect 

on United States commerce. The anticompetitive conduct, and its effect on United States 

commerce described herein, proximately caused antitrust injury to Plaintiffs and members of the 

Classes in the United States. 

26. By reason of the unlawful activities hereinafter alleged, Defendants substantially 

affected commerce throughout the United States, causing injury to Plaintiffs and members of the 

Classes. Defendants, directly and through their agents, engaged in activities affecting all states, 

to fix or inflate prices of Occupant Safety Restraint Systems, and that conspiracy unreasonably 

restrained trade and adversely affected the market for Occupant Safety Restraint Systems. 

Case 2:15-cv-12050-MOB-MKM ECF No. 1 filed 06/05/15 PageID.8 Page 8 of 103
 9 

27. Defendants’ conspiracy and wrongdoing described herein adversely affected 

persons in the United States who purchased Occupant Safety Restraint Systems, including 

Plaintiffs and the Classes. 

PARTIES 

The Plaintiffs 

28. Plaintiff Rush AZ is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business in 

Arizona. Rush AZ is an authorized Peterbilt and Hino dealer. During the Class Period Rush AZ 

purchased, displayed, advertised, and sold Trucks and Equipment containing Occupant Safety 

Restraint Systems manufactured by one or more of the Defendants or their co-conspirators. Rush 

AZ also purchased Occupant Safety Restraint Systems manufactured by one or more of the 

Defendants or their co-conspirators for its repair and service business during the Class Period. 

Rush AZ purchased and received both the aforementioned Trucks and Equipment and Occupant 

Safety Restraint Systems in Arizona. 

29. Plaintiff Rush CA is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business in 

California. Rush CA is an authorized Peterbilt, Hino, Isuzu, and Ford dealer. During the Class 

Period Rush CA purchased, displayed, advertised, and sold Trucks and Equipment containing 

Occupant Safety Restraint Systems manufactured by one or more of the Defendants or their coconspirators. Rush CA also purchased Occupant Safety Restraint Systems manufactured by one 

or more of the Defendants or their co-conspirators for its repair and service business during the 

Class Period. Rush CA purchased and received both the aforementioned Trucks and Equipment 

and Occupant Safety Restraint Systems in California. 

30. Plaintiff Rush CO is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business in 

Colorado. Rush CO is an authorized Peterbilt, Isuzu, and Ford dealer. During the Class Period 

Rush CO purchased, displayed, advertised, and sold Trucks and Equipment containing Occupant 

Case 2:15-cv-12050-MOB-MKM ECF No. 1 filed 06/05/15 PageID.9 Page 9 of 103
 10 

Safety Restraint Systems manufactured by one or more of the Defendants or their coconspirators. Rush CO also purchased Occupant Safety Restraint Systems manufactured by one 

or more of the Defendants or their co-conspirators for its repair and service business during the 

Class Period. Rush CO purchased and received both the aforementioned Trucks and Equipment 

and Occupant Safety Restraint Systems in Colorado. 

31. Plaintiff Rush FL is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business in 

Florida. Rush FL is an authorized Peterbilt, Hino, and Isuzu dealer. During the Class Period 

Rush FL purchased, displayed, advertised, and sold Trucks and Equipment containing Occupant 

Safety Restraint Systems manufactured by one or more of the Defendants or their coconspirators. Rush FL also purchased Occupant Safety Restraint Systems manufactured by one 

or more of the Defendants or their co-conspirators for its repair and service business during the 

Class Period. Rush FL purchased and received both the aforementioned Trucks and Equipment 

and Occupant Safety Restraint Systems in Florida. 

32. Plaintiff Rush GA is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business in 

Georgia. Rush GA is an authorized International, Hino, Isuzu, and IC Bus dealer. During the 

Class Period Rush GA purchased, displayed, advertised, and sold Trucks and Equipment 

containing Occupant Safety Restraint Systems manufactured by one or more of the Defendants 

or their co-conspirators. Rush GA also purchased Occupant Safety Restraint Systems 

manufactured by one or more of the Defendants or their co-conspirators for its repair and service 

business during the Class Period. Rush GA purchased and received both the aforementioned 

Trucks and Equipment and Occupant Safety Restraint Systems in Georgia. 

33. Plaintiff Rush ID is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business in 

Idaho. Rush ID is an authorized International, Autocar, and IC Bus dealer. During the Class 

Case 2:15-cv-12050-MOB-MKM ECF No. 1 filed 06/05/15 PageID.10 Page 10 of 103
 11 

Period Rush ID purchased, displayed, advertised, and sold Trucks and Equipment containing 

Occupant Safety Restraint Systems manufactured by one or more of the Defendants or their coconspirators. Rush ID also purchased Occupant Safety Restraint Systems manufactured by one 

or more of the Defendants or their co-conspirators for its repair and service business during the 

Class Period. Rush ID purchased and received both the aforementioned Trucks and Equipment 

and Occupant Safety Restraint Systems in Idaho. 

34. Plaintiff Rush IL is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business in 

Illinois. Rush CA is an authorized International dealer. During the Class Period Rush IL 

purchased, displayed, advertised, and sold Trucks and Equipment containing Occupant Safety 

Restraint Systems manufactured by one or more of the Defendants or their co-conspirators. Rush 

IL also purchased Occupant Safety Restraint Systems manufactured by one or more of the 

Defendants or their co-conspirators for its repair and service business during the Class Period. 

Rush IL purchased and received both the aforementioned Trucks and Equipment and Occupant 

Safety Restraint Systems in Illinois. 

35. Plaintiff Rush IN is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business in 

Indiana. Rush IN is an authorized International dealer. During the Class Period Rush IN 

purchased, displayed, advertised, and sold Trucks and Equipment containing Occupant Safety 

Restraint Systems manufactured by one or more of the Defendants or their co-conspirators. Rush 

IN also purchased Occupant Safety Restraint Systems manufactured by one or more of the 

Defendants or their co-conspirators for its repair and service business during the Class Period. 

Rush IN purchased and received both the aforementioned Trucks and Equipment and Occupant 

Safety Restraint Systems in Indiana. 

Case 2:15-cv-12050-MOB-MKM ECF No. 1 filed 06/05/15 PageID.11 Page 11 of 103
 12 

36. Plaintiff Rush KS is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business in 

Kansas. Rush CA is an authorized Hino and Isuzu dealer. During the Class Period Rush KS 

purchased, displayed, advertised, and sold Trucks and Equipment containing Occupant Safety 

Restraint Systems manufactured by one or more of the Defendants or their co-conspirators. Rush 

KS also purchased Occupant Safety Restraint Systems manufactured by one or more of the 

Defendants or their co-conspirators for its repair and service business during the Class Period. 

Rush KS purchased and received both the aforementioned Trucks and Equipment and Occupant 

Safety Restraint Systems in Kansas. 

37. Plaintiff Rush MO is a Missouri corporation with its principal place of business in 

Missouri. Rush MO is an authorized International dealer. During the Class Period Rush MO 

purchased, displayed, advertised, and sold Trucks and Equipment containing Occupant Safety 

Restraint Systems manufactured by one or more of the Defendants or their co-conspirators. Rush 

MO also purchased Occupant Safety Restraint Systems manufactured by one or more of the 

Defendants or their co-conspirators for its repair and service business during the Class Period. 

Rush MO purchased and received both the aforementioned Trucks and Equipment and Occupant 

Safety Restraint Systems in Missouri. 

38. Plaintiff Rush NC is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business in 

North Carolina. Rush NC is an authorized International, Peterbilt, Hino, and Isuzu dealer. During 

the Class Period Rush NC purchased, displayed, advertised, and sold Trucks and Equipment 

containing Occupant Safety Restraint Systems manufactured by one or more of the Defendants 

or their co-conspirators. Rush NC also purchased Occupant Safety Restraint Systems 

manufactured by one or more of the Defendants or their co-conspirators for its repair and service 

Case 2:15-cv-12050-MOB-MKM ECF No. 1 filed 06/05/15 PageID.12 Page 12 of 103
 13 

business during the Class Period. Rush NC purchased and received both the aforementioned 

Trucks and Equipment and Occupant Safety Restraint Systems in North Carolina. 

39. Plaintiff Rush OH is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business in 

Ohio. Rush OH is an authorized International, IC Bus, Isuzu, Ford, and Mitsubishi dealer. 

During the Class Period Rush OH purchased, displayed, advertised, and sold Trucks and 

Equipment containing Occupant Safety Restraint Systems manufactured by one or more of the 

Defendants or their co-conspirators. Rush OH also purchased Occupant Safety Restraint Systems 

manufactured by one or more of the Defendants or their co-conspirators for its repair and service 

business during the Class Period. Rush OH purchased and received both the aforementioned 

Trucks and Equipment and Occupant Safety Restraint Systems in Ohio. 

40. Plaintiff Rush OK is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business in 

Oklahoma. Rush OK is an authorized Peterbilt, Hino, Isuzu, and Ford dealer. During the Class 

Period Rush OK purchased, displayed, advertised, and sold Trucks and Equipment containing 

Occupant Safety Restraint Systems manufactured by one or more of the Defendants or their coconspirators. Rush OK also purchased Occupant Safety Restraint Systems manufactured by one 

or more of the Defendants or their co-conspirators for its repair and service business during the 

Class Period. Rush OK purchased and received both the aforementioned Trucks and Equipment 

and Occupant Safety Restraint Systems in Oklahoma. 

41. Plaintiff Rush OR is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business in 

California. Rush OR is an authorized International dealer. During the Class Period Rush OR 

purchased, displayed, advertised, and sold Trucks and Equipment containing Occupant Safety 

Restraint Systems manufactured by one or more of the Defendants or their co-conspirators. Rush 

OR also purchased Occupant Safety Restraint Systems manufactured by one or more of the 

Case 2:15-cv-12050-MOB-MKM ECF No. 1 filed 06/05/15 PageID.13 Page 13 of 103
 14 

Defendants or their co-conspirators for its repair and service business during the Class Period. 

Rush OR purchased and received both the aforementioned Trucks and Equipment and Occupant 

Safety Restraint Systems in Oregon. 

42. Plaintiff Rush TN is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business in 

Tennessee. Rush TN is an authorized Peterbilt dealer. During the Class Period Rush TN 

purchased, displayed, advertised, and sold Trucks and Equipment containing Occupant Safety 

Restraint Systems manufactured by one or more of the Defendants or their co-conspirators. Rush 

TN also purchased Occupant Safety Restraint Systems manufactured by one or more of the 

Defendants or their co-conspirators for its repair and service business during the Class Period. 

Rush TN purchased and received both the aforementioned Trucks and Equipment and Occupant 

Safety Restraint Systems in Tennessee. 

43. Plaintiff Rush TX is a Texas limited partnership with its principal place of 

business in Texas. Rush TX is an authorized Peterbilt, Hino, Isuzu, Blue Bird, Micro Bird, 

Elkhart, and Ford dealer. During the Class Period Rush TX purchased, displayed, advertised, and 

sold Trucks and Equipment containing Occupant Safety Restraint Systems manufactured by one 

or more of the Defendants or their co-conspirators. Rush TX also purchased Occupant Safety 

Restraint Systems manufactured by one or more of the Defendants or their co-conspirators for its 

repair and service business during the Class Period. Rush TX purchased and received both the 

aforementioned Trucks and Equipment and Occupant Safety Restraint Systems in Texas. 

44. Plaintiff Rush UT is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business in 

Utah. Rush UT is an authorized International, IC Bus, Autocar, and Mitsubishi Fuso dealer. 

During the Class Period Rush UT purchased, displayed, advertised, and sold Trucks and 

Equipment containing Occupant Safety Restraint Systems manufactured by one or more of the 

Case 2:15-cv-12050-MOB-MKM ECF No. 1 filed 06/05/15 PageID.14 Page 14 of 103
 15 

Defendants or their co-conspirators. Rush UT also purchased Occupant Safety Restraint Systems 

manufactured by one or more of the Defendants or their co-conspirators for its repair and service 

business during the Class Period. Rush UT purchased and received both the aforementioned 

Trucks and Equipment and Occupant Safety Restraint Systems in Utah. 

45. Plaintiff Rush VA is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business in 

Virginia. Rush VA is an authorized International dealer. During the Class Period Rush VA 

purchased, displayed, advertised, and sold Trucks and Equipment containing Occupant Safety 

Restraint Systems manufactured by one or more of the Defendants or their co-conspirators. Rush 

VA also purchased Occupant Safety Restraint Systems manufactured by one or more of the 

Defendants or their co-conspirators for its repair and service business during the Class Period. 

Rush VA purchased and received both the aforementioned Trucks and Equipment and Occupant 

Safety Restraint Systems in Virginia. 

The Defendants 

TRW Defendants 

46. Defendant TRW Automotive Holdings Corp. (“TRW U.S.”) is a Delaware 

corporation with its principal place of business in Livonia, Michigan. TRW U.S., directly or 

through its wholly-owned and/or controlled subsidiaries, manufactured, marketed, and/or sold 

Occupant Safety Restraint Systems that were purchased throughout the United States, including 

in this district, during the Class Period, including by firms that sold such Occupant Safety 

Restraint Systems to Plaintiffs and class members. 

47. Defendant TRW Deutschland Holding Gmbh (“TRW Germany”) is a German 

corporation with its principal place of business in Koblenz, Germany. Defendant TRW Germany 

is a subsidiary of and wholly-owned and/or controlled by Defendant TRW U.S. Defendant TRW 

Germany, directly and/or through its subsidiaries which it wholly owned and/or controlled, 

Case 2:15-cv-12050-MOB-MKM ECF No. 1 filed 06/05/15 PageID.15 Page 15 of 103
 16 

manufactured, marketed and/or sold Occupant Safety Restraint Systems that were purchased 

throughout the United States, including in this district, during the Class Period, including by 

firms that sold such Occupant Safety Restraint Systems to Plaintiffs and class members. At all 

times during the Class Period, its activities were under the control and direction of TRW U.S., 

which controlled its policies, sales, and finances. 

48. TRW Germany and TRW U.S. are collectively referred to as “TRW.” 

Takata Defendants 

49. Defendant Takata Corp. is a Japanese corporation with its principal place of 

business in Tokyo, Japan. Defendant Takata Corp. directly and/or through its subsidiaries, which 

it wholly owned and/or controlled, manufactured, marketed, and/or sold Occupant Safety 

Restraint Systems that were purchased throughout the United States, including in this district, 

during the Class Period, including by firms that sold such Occupant Safety Restraint Systems to 

Plaintiffs and class members. 

50. Defendant TK Holdings, Inc. (“TK”), is a Delaware corporation with its principal 

place of business in Auburn Hills, Michigan. It is a subsidiary of and wholly owned and/or 

controlled by its Japanese parent, Takata. Defendant TK manufactured, marketed, and/or sold 

Occupant Safety Restraint Systems that were purchased throughout the United States, including 

in this district, during the Class Period including by firms that sold such Occupant Safety 

Restraint Systems to Plaintiffs and class members. At all times during the Class Period, its 

activities in the United States were under the control and direction of its Japanese parent, which 

controlled its policies, sales, and finances. 

51. Executives who have worked at Takata Corp., in Japan, have also worked at TK, 

in the U.S. Yoshiyasu Kikuchi, an executive officer at Takata Corp. is a director at TK. Yoichiro 

Nomura, the Chief Financial Officer at Takata Corp. is a director at TK. Juichiro Takada, the 

Case 2:15-cv-12050-MOB-MKM ECF No. 1 filed 06/05/15 PageID.16 Page 16 of 103
 17 

former Chairman and CEO of Takata Corp. was also a director at TK. Shunkichi Shimizu, a 

former executive officer at Takata Corp., in charge of “America Operations,” was also the 

president and secretary of TK Holdings. Takata Corporation also refers to TK Holdings as its 

American headquarters, stating “Takata’s regional headquarters for the Americas is in Auburn 

Hills, Michigan.” 

52. Takata has targeted the U.S. and U.S. customers in a myriad of ways. Takata’s 

annual report states that “Takata and GM jointly developed a front center airbag, which will be 

installed in GM’s 2013 models.” http://www.takata.com/ir/pdf/material05/120831ar en.pdf at 36. 

Takata’s 2011 report states that “auto industry in North America is expected to continue its 

recovery, and we will tap growing demand for high value added safety products such as curtain 

airbags and side airbags . . . “http://www.takata.com/ir/pdf/material05/110829ar en.pdf at 11. 

Takata’s 2011 report reviewed new U.S. regulations regarding vehicle restraints, which it 

deemed “driver[s] of growth,” for its business. Id. at 20. Takata’s report also announces that 

“[i]n April 2010, Takata Corporation was chosen by Ford Motor Company to be one of 13 

suppliers newly added to Ford’s Aligned Business Framework (ABF) for closer collaboration 

and long-term partnership.” It also states that “[t]he close proximity of Ford and Takata’s North 

American headquarters in southeast Michigan has enabled synergies that in recent years have 

strengthened the partnership between the two companies.” Id. at 22. Takata’s report also 

mentions specific initiatives aimed at the U.S. market including “buckle-up campaigns, child 

restraint training sessions at maternity classes, anti drunk driving campaigns, and skill 

improvement courses such as those we run in the United States.” 

53. Defendants Takata Corp. and TK are collectively referred to as “Takata.” 

Case 2:15-cv-12050-MOB-MKM ECF No. 1 filed 06/05/15 PageID.17 Page 17 of 103
 18 

Autoliv Defendants 

54. Defendant Autoliv, Inc. (“Autoliv”) is a Delaware corporation with its principal 

place of business in Stockholm, Sweden. Defendant Autoliv, Inc.—directly and/or through its 

subsidiaries, which it wholly owned and/or controlled—manufactured, marketed, and/or sold 

Occupant Safety Restraint Systems that were purchased throughout the United States, including 

in this district, during the Class Period including by firms that sold such Occupant Safety 

Restraint Systems to Plaintiffs and class members. 

55. Defendant Autoliv ASP, Inc. is an Indiana corporation with its principal place of 

business in Ogden, Utah. It is a subsidiary of and wholly owned and/or controlled by its Swedish 

parent, Autoliv, Inc. Defendant Autoliv ASP, Inc. manufactured, marketed, and/or sold Occupant 

Safety Restraint Systems that were purchased throughout the United States, including in this 

district, during the Class Period, including by firms that sold such Occupant Safety Restraint 

Systems to Plaintiffs and class members. At all times during the Class Period, its activities in the 

United States were under the control and direction of its Swedish parent, which controlled its 

policies, sales, and finances. 

56. Defendant Autoliv B.V. & Co. KG is a German corporation with its principal 

place of business in Elmshorn, Germany. It is a subsidiary of and wholly owned and/or 

controlled by its Swedish parent, Autoliv, Inc. Defendant Autoliv B.V. & Co. KG manufactured, 

marketed, and/or sold Occupant Safety Restraint Systems that were purchased throughout the 

United States, including in this district, during the Class Period including by firms that sold such 

Occupant Safety Restraint Systems to Plaintiffs and class members. At all times during the Class 

Period, its activities in the United States were under the control and direction of its Swedish 

parent, which controlled its policies, sales, and finances. 

Case 2:15-cv-12050-MOB-MKM ECF No. 1 filed 06/05/15 PageID.18 Page 18 of 103
 19 

57. Autoliv Japan Ltd. is a Japanese corporation with its principal place of business in 

Yokohama, Japan. It is a wholly owned and/or controlled subsidiary of Autoliv, Inc. Autoliv 

Japan Ltd. manufactured, marketed, and/or sold Occupant Safety Restraint Systems that were 

purchased throughout the United States, including in this district, during the Class Period, 

including by firms that sold such Occupant Safety Restraint Systems to Plaintiffs and class 

members. At all times during the Class Period, its activities in the United States were under the 

control and direction of its Swedish parent, which controlled its policies, sales, and finances. 

58. Defendants Autoliv, Inc., Autoliv ASP, Inc., Autoliv B.V. & Co. KG and Autoliv 

Japan Ltd. are collectively referred to as “Autoliv.” 

Tokai Rika Defendants 

59. Defendant Tokai Rika Co., Ltd. is a Japanese corporation with its principal place 

of business in Aichi, Japan. Defendant Tokai Rika Co., Ltd.—directly and/or through its 

subsidiaries, which it wholly owned and/or controlled—manufactured, marketed, and/or sold 

Occupant Safety Restraint Systems that were purchased throughout the United States, including 

in this district, during the Class Period, including by firms that sold such Occupant Safety 

Restraint Systems to Plaintiffs and class members. 

60. Defendant TRAM, Inc. d/b/a Tokai Rika U.S.A. Inc. is a Michigan corporation 

with its principal place of business in Plymouth, Michigan. It is a subsidiary of and wholly 

owned and/or controlled by its Japanese parent, Tokai Rika Co., Ltd. Defendant TRAM, Inc. 

d/b/a Tokai Rika U.S.A. Inc. manufactured, marketed, and/or sold Occupant Safety Restraint 

Systems that were purchased throughout the United States, including in this district, during the 

Class Period, including by firms that sold such Occupant Safety Restraint Systems to Plaintiffs 

and class members. At all times during the Class Period, its activities in the United States were 

Case 2:15-cv-12050-MOB-MKM ECF No. 1 filed 06/05/15 PageID.19 Page 19 of 103
 20 

under the control and direction of its Japanese parent, which controlled its policies, sales, and 

finances. 

61. Executives who have worked at Tokai Rika Co. Ltd. have also worked at TRAM, 

Inc. For instance, Masayuki Morita, the President and Chief Operating Officer at TRAM, Inc. 

previously served as a Managing Director and Director at Tokai Rika Co., Ltd. Yoshihei Iida, the 

former Chairman of Tokai Rika Co. Ltd., is a Board member at TRAM, Inc. Kiyoshi Kinoshita, 

the former Chairman of the Board and Representative Director, at Tokai Rika Co. Ltd., was also 

previously the President of TRAM, Inc. 

62. The same year that TRAM was established in the U.S., Tokai Rika received its 

“QS9000 certification,” a quality standard the possession of which was required by the three 

major U.S. manufacturers: Ford, GM and Chrysler. 

63. Defendants Tokai Rika Co., Ltd. and TRAM, Inc. are collectively referred to as 

“Tokai Rika.” 

AGENTS AND CO-CONSPIRATORS 

64. Each Defendant acted as the principal of or agent for the other Defendants with 

respect to the acts, violations, and common course of conduct alleged. 

65. Various persons, partnerships, sole proprietors, firms, corporations, and 

individuals not named as Defendants in this lawsuit, the identities of which are presently 

unknown, have participated as co-conspirators with Defendants in the offenses alleged in this 

Complaint, and have performed acts and made statements in furtherance of the conspiracy or in 

furtherance of the anti-competitive conduct. 

66. Whenever in this Complaint reference is made to any act, deed, or transaction of 

any corporation or limited liability entity, the allegation means that the corporation or limited 

liability entity engaged in the act, deed, or transaction by or through its officers, directors, agents, 

Case 2:15-cv-12050-MOB-MKM ECF No. 1 filed 06/05/15 PageID.20 Page 20 of 103
employee

control, o

A

6

vehicle th

include s

6

manufact

They are

Occupan

6

Industrie

Other aut

through s

Hino Mo

heavy du

Bus Corp

Class Per

es, or repres

or transactio

A. The O

7. Occup

hat protect d

seat belts, air

8. Occup

turers (“OEM

 also installe

nt Safety Res

9. Many

s, Nissan, Su

tomobile OE

subsidiaries 

otors (“Hino”

uty trucks, an

p. (“Fuso”). 

riod. Fuso r

entatives wh

n of the corp

Occupant Sa

pant Safety R

drivers and p

r bags, steeri

pant Safety R

Ms”) in new

ed in Trucks

straint System

y automobile

ubaru, Hond

EMs, includi

or other affi

”). Hino rep

nd buses. Da

 Mitsubishi 

represents th

hile they wer

poration’s or

FACTUAL

afety Restra

Restraint Sy

passengers fr

ing wheels (o

Restraint Sy

 Trucks and 

 and Equipm

ms. 

 OEMs inclu

da, and Chry

ing Toyota, D

iliated compa

presents the T

aimler owns

also owns an

e Daimler G

21 

re actively en

r limited liab

L ALLEGA

aint Systems

stems are ge

rom bodily h

or steering s

stems are in

Equipment 

ment to repla

uding Ford, 

ysler manufac

Daimler, and

anies. For e

Toyota Grou

s approximat

nd has owne

Group in the m

ngaged in th

bility entity’

ATIONS 

s Industry

enerally com

harm. Occup

systems), and

stalled by or

as part of th

ace worn out

General Mo

cture and se

d Mitsubishi

example, Toy

up in the mar

tely 90% of 

ed an interes

market for m

he managem

s business o

mprised of the

pant Safety R

d safety elec

riginal equip

he manufactu

t, defective, 

otors, Isuzu, 

ll Trucks an

i, sell Trucks

yota is the m

arket for med

Mitsubishi F

st in Fuso thr

medium duty

ment, directio

r affairs. 

e parts in a 

Restraint Sys

ctronic system

pment 

uring proces

or damaged 

Fuji Heavy 

nd/or Equipm

s and Equipm

majority own

dium duty tru

Fuso Truck a

roughout the

y trucks. 

on, 

stems 

ms. 

s. 

ment. 

ment 

ner of 

ucks, 

and 

e

Case 2:15-cv-12050-MOB-MKM ECF No. 1 filed 06/05/15 PageID.21 Page 21 of 103
 22 

70. Trucks and Equipment OEMs, who are mostly large manufacturers such as 

International, Peterbilt, Kenworth, Daimler, Volvo, Mack, Hino, Isuzu, Fuso, Autocar, Ford and 

others, purchase Occupant Safety Restraint Systems directly from parts suppliers such as 

Defendants. 

71. Occupant Safety Restraint Systems may also be purchased by component 

manufacturers who then supply such systems to OEMs. These component manufacturers are 

also called “Tier I Manufacturers” in the Truck and Equipment industry. A Tier I manufacturer 

supplies Occupant Safety Restraint Systems directly to an OEM. 

72. When purchasing Occupant Safety Restraint Systems, OEMs issue Requests for 

Quotation (“RFQs”) to vehicle parts suppliers—Occupant Safety Restraint Systems are not 

commodity items. Vehicle parts suppliers submit quotations, or bids, to OEMs in response to 

RFQs and the OEMs usually award the business to the selected vehicle parts supplier for four to 

six years. Typically, the bidding process begins approximately three years prior to the start of 

production of a new model. 

73. Suppliers, including Defendants, supply OEMs with both Occupant Safety 

Restraint Systems to be installed in Trucks and Equipment, and Occupant Safety Restraint 

Systems to be used for replacement purposes. 

74. The Defendants and their co-conspirators supplied Occupant Safety Restraint 

Systems to OEMs for installation in Trucks and Equipment manufactured and sold in the United 

States and elsewhere. The Defendants and their co-conspirators manufactured Occupant Safety 

Restraint Systems (a) in the United States for installation in Trucks and Equipment manufactured 

and sold in the United States, (b) abroad for export to the United States and installation in Trucks 

Case 2:15-cv-12050-MOB-MKM ECF No. 1 filed 06/05/15 PageID.22 Page 22 of 103
 23 

and Equipment manufactured and sold in the United States, and (c) abroad for installation in 

Trucks and Equipment manufactured abroad for export to and sale in the United States. 

75. Upon information and belief, Defendants’ employees responsible for negotiating 

the prices and terms for parts, including Occupant Safety Restraint Systems, were involved in 

sales to Truck and Equipment manufacturers as well as to automobile manufacturers. 

76. TRW’s main customers include: GM, Chrysler, Ford, Mercedes, Renault, Nissan, 

Fiat, Toyota, BMW, Honda, Hyundai, Volkswagen, and Daimler Trucks. 

77. Takata’s main customers include: Toyota, Honda, BMW, Mazda, Nissan, GM, 

Chrysler, Ford, and Kenworth. 

78. Autoliv’s main customers include: GM, Ford, Nissan, Renault, Hyundai, Kia, 

VW, Chrysler, Fiat, Honda, Toyota, BMW, Mercedes, Daimler, Volvo, Scania, Navistar, and 

Mitsubishi-Fuso. 

79. Tokai Rika’s main customers include: Toyota, Subaru, SAAB, Volvo, Nissan, 

Subaru, Isuzu, GM, Ford, Suzuki, Mazda, Mitsubishi, Chrysler, and Hino. 

80. Plaintiffs and members of the proposed Classes purchased Occupant Safety 

Restraint Systems indirectly from the Defendants and their co-conspirators. By way of example, 

Truck and Equipment dealers indirectly purchase Occupant Safety Restraint Systems from the 

Defendants when they purchase new Trucks and Equipment to sell or lease to consumers. 

Likewise, when repairing a damaged vehicle or when the vehicle’s Occupant Safety Restraint 

Systems are defective, Plaintiffs and other Truck and Equipment dealers indirectly purchase 

replacement Occupant Safety Restraint Systems from Defendants. 

81. Replacement Occupant Safety Restraint Systems sold by OEMs to dealerships are 

the same as the Occupant Safety Restraint Systems installed in Trucks and Equipment and are 

Case 2:15-cv-12050-MOB-MKM ECF No. 1 filed 06/05/15 PageID.23 Page 23 of 103
 24 

made by the same manufacturer who made the Occupant Safety Restraint Systems originally 

installed—that is the purpose of an OEM part, made by the OEM supplier. Such replacement 

parts are not the same as aftermarket parts, which are made by different manufacturers than those 

who manufactured the original parts. The prices of replacement Occupant Safety Restraint 

Systems were inflated by Defendants’ collusion. 

82. According to Autoliv’s 2011 Annual Report, the global market for Occupant 

Safety Restraint Systems in 2010 was $18.1 billion and the North American market for Occupant 

Safety Restraint Systems was $4.2 billion. 

83. The global Occupant Safety Restraint Systems market is dominated and 

controlled by large manufacturers, the top three of which are Defendants who control almost 

75% of the market. The Autoliv Defendants account for more than 33% of the global market for 

Occupant Safety Restraint Systems; as Autoliv states in its 2011 Annual Report, it is “the 

world’s largest automotive safety supplier with sales to all the leading car manufacturers in the 

world.” TRW accounts for approximately 20% of the global market for Occupant Safety 

Restraint Systems. And, the Takata Defendants account for approximately 20% of the Occupant 

Safety Restraint Systems global market. 

84. By virtue of their market shares, Defendants are the dominant manufacturers and 

suppliers of Occupant Safety Restraint Systems in the United States and the world. 

85. Airbags are a type of Occupant Safety Restraint System. Airbags are occupant 

restraints designed to control the movement of an occupant inside a vehicle in the event of a 

collision. An Airbag consists of a light fabric air bag, an inflator, which, through use of 

pressurized gas (typically generated by pyrotechnic materials), rapidly inflates the Airbag upon 

deployment, and an initiator to initiate the deployment. It may also include, depending on the 

Case 2:15-cv-12050-MOB-MKM ECF No. 1 filed 06/05/15 PageID.24 Page 24 of 103
 25 

requirements of the vehicle manufacturer, an injection molded plastic decorative cover or other 

devices associated with the Airbag. According to the National Highway Traffic Safety 

Administration, a typical new Airbag retailed for approximately $1,000 from a dealer in 2011. 

86. In 2012, the total dollar-value of Airbags sold in the U.S. reached $6.7 billion. 

87. According to Autoliv’s website, it manufactures more than one-third of the 

Airbags sold in North America, and according to its 2011 10-K, Autoliv manufactures more than 

40% of the side Airbags and almost 30% of the frontal Airbags sold in the world. TRW and 

Takata are also major manufacturers of Airbags. 

88. Seatbelts are another type of Occupant Safety Restraint System. Seatbelts are 

safety strap restraints designed to secure an occupant in position in a vehicle in the event of a 

collision. A Seatbelt includes belt webbing, a buckle, a retractor, and hardware for installation in 

a vehicle. It may also include, depending on the requirements of the vehicle manufacturer, a 

height adjuster, a pretensioner, or other devices associated with the Seatbelt. In 2012, the total 

dollar-value of Seatbelts sold in the U.S. reached over $900 million. 

89. According to Autoliv’s website, it manufactures almost one-third of the Seatbelts 

sold in North America, and according to its 2011 10-K, Autoliv manufactures 40% of the 

Seatbelts sold in the world. TRW and Takata are also major manufacturers of Seatbelts. 

90. Steering Wheels are another type of Occupant Safety Restraint System. Steering 

Wheels consist of a die-cast armature (frame) covered by molded polyurethane. Steering Wheels 

are then finished with leather, wood trim, or plastic, and may include various electronic features 

and controls, depending on the requirements of a vehicle manufacturer. 

91. In 2012, the dollar-value for Steering Wheels and related components sold in the 

U.S. reached $2.24 billion. 

Case 2:15-cv-12050-MOB-MKM ECF No. 1 filed 06/05/15 PageID.25 Page 25 of 103
 26 

92. According to its website, Autoliv manufactures more than 15% of the Steering 

Wheels sold in North America, and in its 2011 10-K, Autoliv states that it manufactures almost 

30% of the Steering Wheels sold in the world. TRW and Takata are also major manufacturers of 

Steering Wheels. 

B. The Structure and Characteristics of the Occupant Safety Restraint Systems 

Market Render the Conspiracy More Plausible. 

93. The structure and other characteristics of the Occupant Safety Restraint Systems 

market in the United States are conducive to a price-fixing agreement, and have made collusion 

particularly attractive in these markets. Specifically, the Occupant Safety Restraint Systems 

market: (1) has high barriers to entry; (2) has inelasticity of demand; (3) is highly concentrated; 

and (4) is rife with opportunities to conspire. 

1. The Occupant Safety Restraint Systems Market Has High Barriers to 

Entry. 

94. A collusive arrangement that raises product prices above competitive levels 

would, under basic economic principles, attract new entrants seeking to benefit from the supracompetitive pricing. Where, however, there are significant barriers to entry, new entrants are less 

likely. Thus, barriers to entry help facilitate the formation and maintenance of a cartel. 

95. There are substantial barriers that preclude, reduce, or make more difficult entry 

into the Occupant Safety Restraint Systems market. A new entrant into the business would face 

costly and lengthy start-up costs, including multi-million dollar costs associated with 

manufacturing plants and equipment, energy, transportation, distribution infrastructure, skilled 

labor, and long-standing customer relationships. 

96. In addition, an OEM cannot freely change its suppliers of Occupant Safety 

Restraint Systems because OEMs design the features of their vehicles, including the electronics, 

mechanics, thermal distribution, and other features, so that they may be integrated with a 

Case 2:15-cv-12050-MOB-MKM ECF No. 1 filed 06/05/15 PageID.26 Page 26 of 103
 27 

selected Occupant Safety Restraint System. Thus, it would be difficult for a new competitor to 

enter the market after a vehicle has been specifically designed to be integrated with a particular 

Occupant Safety Restraint System. 

97. Research and development costs are also significant for Occupant Safety Restraint 

Systems, creating an additional barrier to entry. Airbags are constantly researched for better 

deployment speeds, Seatbelts are constantly researched for better functionality and quality, and 

Steering Wheels are constantly researched for better precision and rotation. 

98. Defendants also own several patents for Occupant Safety Restraint Systems. For 

example, TRW owns Airbag, Steering Wheel and Seatbelt patents. These patents place a 

significant and costly burden on potential new entrants, who must avoid infringing on the patents 

when entering the market with a new product. 

2. There is Inelasticity of Demand for Occupant Safety Restraint 

Systems. 

99. “Elasticity” is a term used to describe the sensitivity of supply and demand to 

changes in one or the other. For example, demand is said to be “inelastic” if an increase in the 

price of a product results in only a small decline in the quantity sold of that product, if any. In 

other words, customers have nowhere to turn for alternative, cheaper products of similar quality, 

and so continue to purchase despite a price increase. 

100. For a cartel to profit from raising prices above competitive levels, demand must 

be relatively inelastic at competitive prices. Otherwise, increased prices would result in declining 

sales, revenues, and profits, as customers purchased substitute products or declined to buy 

altogether. Inelastic demand is a market characteristic that facilitates collusion, allowing 

producers to raise their prices without triggering customer substitution and lost sales revenue. 

Case 2:15-cv-12050-MOB-MKM ECF No. 1 filed 06/05/15 PageID.27 Page 27 of 103
 28 

101. Demand for Occupant Safety Restraint Systems is highly inelastic. This is 

because there are no close substitutes for these products. Additionally, customers must purchase 

Occupant Safety Restraint Systems as essential parts of a vehicle, regardless of whether prices 

are kept at supra-competitive levels. Customers wanting to purchase Trucks and Equipment 

simply have no choice but to purchase Occupant Safety Restraint Systems. 

3. The Market for Occupant Safety Restraint Systems is Highly 

Concentrated. 

102. Defendants dominate the Occupant Safety Restraint Systems market. Three of the 

Defendants control almost 75% of the global market. 

4. Defendants Had Ample Opportunities to Conspire 

103. Defendants attended industry events where they had the opportunity to meet, have 

improper discussions under the guise of legitimate business contacts, and perform acts necessary 

for the operation and furtherance of the conspiracy. In a June 6, 2012, press release, the DOJ 

explained that Defendant Autoliv and its co-conspirators met in secret and agreed to allocate the 

supply of various automotive parts. According to the Autoliv information, Autoliv and its 

coconspirators participated in meetings, conversations and communications to discuss and agree 

on the bids and price quotations to be submitted to certain manufacturers for Occupant Safety 

Restraint Systems, and agreed, during meetings, conversations and communications, to allocate 

the supply of Occupant Safety Restraint Systems sold to certain manufacturers on a model-bymodel basis. 

C. Government Investigations 

104. A globally coordinated antitrust investigation is taking place in the United States, 

Europe, Canada, and Japan, aimed at suppliers of vehicle parts in general and Occupant Safety 

Restraint Systems in particular. The DOJ has confirmed that its vehicle parts investigation is the 

Case 2:15-cv-12050-MOB-MKM ECF No. 1 filed 06/05/15 PageID.28 Page 28 of 103
 29 

largest criminal investigation that the Antitrust Division has ever pursued, both in terms of its 

scope and the potential volume of commerce affected by the illegal conduct. Almost $1 billion in 

criminal fines have already been levied against various vehicle parts manufacturers. 

105. The probe originated in Europe as the result of several European OEMs coming 

together to bring a complaint to the EC. The EC and the FBI have executed surprise raids at the 

European and U.S. offices of several vehicle parts manufacturers, including certain Defendants, 

as part of an investigation into anticompetitive conduct related to the manufacturing and sale of 

vehicle parts. 

106. Defendants Autoliv, TRW, and Takata have admitted that they are cooperating 

with the antitrust investigators. Autoliv, Inc. stated in its 2011 Annual Report that its subsidiary, 

Autoliv ASP, Inc., received a grand jury subpoena from the Antitrust Division of the United 

States Department of Justice on February 8, 2011. “The subpoena requested documents and 

information as part of a long-running investigation into possible anticompetitive behavior among 

certain suppliers to the automotive vehicle industry, including Autoliv.” Autoliv, Inc.’s 2011 

Annual Report also stated that, on June 7-9, 2011, representatives of the EC visited two facilities 

of Autoliv B.V. & Co. KG to gather information for a similar inquiry. 

107. TRW stated in its 2011 Annual Report that “in June 2011, European antitrust 

authorities visited certain of our Occupant Safety Systems business unit locations in Germany to 

gather information. We also received a subpoena related to the Antitrust Investigations in the 

United States from the U.S. Department of Justice.” 

108. On February 23, 2010, investigators from the FBI raided the Plymouth, Michigan, 

offices of Tokai Rika as part of a federal antitrust investigation. Special Agent Sandra Berchtold 

Case 2:15-cv-12050-MOB-MKM ECF No. 1 filed 06/05/15 PageID.29 Page 29 of 103
 30 

stated that the affidavits that contain facts supporting issuance of the search warrants were filed 

in federal court under seal. 

109. Takata Corp. stated in its 2011 Annual Report that TK Holdings, Inc., a U.S. 

subsidiary, “became the subject to an investigation conducted by the Federal Bureau of 

Investigation on February 8, 2011. TK Holdings, Inc. is cooperating fully with the investigation.” 

Alby Berman, vice-president of marketing and public relations for TK Holdings, Inc., said the 

subpoena “targeted safety system suppliers - seat belts, air bags, steering wheels and safety 

electronics - any communications with competitors, and specifically mentioned Tokai Rika” and 

that the subpoena targeted communications dating back to January 1, 2005. Special Agent 

Sandra Berchtold, media coordinator for the FBI, confirmed that the FBI raided TK Holdings, 

Inc.’s offices in Auburn Hills, Michigan. 

110. The DOJ has stated that it is conducting an investigation of potential antitrust 

activity and coordinating its investigation with antitrust regulators in Europe. 

111. To obtain the search warrant to raid TK Holdings, Inc., the FBI was legally 

required to have probable cause, accepted by a magistrate, to believe that it would obtain 

evidence of an antitrust violation as a result of executing the search warrant—that is, the United 

States had to have evidence sufficient to warrant a person of reasonable caution to believe that 

raiding the offices of a seemingly lawful business would uncover evidence of antitrust violations 

and that claimed evidence must have been examined and accepted by a magistrate. That belief, 

which was recounted in sworn affidavits or testimony, must be grounded on reasonably 

trustworthy information. 

Case 2:15-cv-12050-MOB-MKM ECF No. 1 filed 06/05/15 PageID.30 Page 30 of 103
 31 

D. Guilty Plea Agreements 

Autoliv’s Plea Agreement 

112. Defendant Autoliv has pleaded guilty and agreed to pay a total of $14.5 million in 

criminal fines concerning a two-count criminal investigation for fixing the prices of seatbelts, 

steering wheels, and airbags. Autoliv has admitted to conspiring with others to suppress and 

eliminate competition in the parts industry by agreeing to rig bids for, and to fix, stabilize, and 

maintain the prices of, Occupant Safety Restraint Systems sold to certain manufacturers in the 

United States and elsewhere at various times from at least as early as March 2006 and continuing 

until at least February 2011 in violation of the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1. Among other things, 

Autoliv admitted to: (a) participating in meetings, conversations, and communications to discuss 

the bids and price quotations to be submitted to certain manufacturers for Occupant Safety 

Restraint Systems; (b) agreeing, during those meetings, conversations, and communications, on 

bids and price quotations to be submitted to certain manufacturers for Occupant Safety Restraint 

Systems; (c) agreeing, during those meetings, conversations, and communications, to allocate the 

supply of Occupant Safety Restraint Systems sold to certain manufacturers on a model-by-model 

basis; (d) submitting bids and price quotations to certain manufacturers in accordance with the 

agreements reached; (e) selling Occupant Safety Restraint Systems to certain manufacturers at 

collusive and noncompetitive prices; and (f) accepting payment for Occupant Safety Restraint 

Systems sold to certain manufacturers at collusive and noncompetitive prices. 

113. The plea agreement requires it and its subsidiaries to cooperate with the DOJ, 

including producing documents in their control and providing their “directors, officers and 

employees” for interviews and the provision of testimony in grand jury, trial and other judicial 

proceedings. 

Case 2:15-cv-12050-MOB-MKM ECF No. 1 filed 06/05/15 PageID.31 Page 31 of 103
 32 

114. The plea agreement further provides that upon acceptance of the agreement, the 

United States will not bring further criminal charges against, among other entities, Autoliv Inc.’s 

subsidiaries arising out of the conspiracy. 

115. Pursuant to the plea agreement, Autoliv Inc. agreed that if the United States 

determines that it or its subsidiaries fail to provide truthful and continuing cooperation, the 

United States could elect to subject Autoliv Inc. or its subsidiaries to criminal prosecution and 

that the United States would have the right, among other things, to prosecute both Autoliv Inc. 

and its subsidiaries for the conspiracy set forth in the plea agreement. 

116. In addition to Autoliv, Takayoshi Matsunaga, the former Vice President of the 

Toyota Global Business Unit at Autoliv Japan, pleaded guilty to a one count Criminal 

Information charging him with participating in a conspiracy to suppress and eliminate 

competition in the parts industry by agreeing to rig bids for, and to fix, stabilize, and maintain the 

prices of certain seat belts sold to Toyota in the United States and elsewhere in violation of the 

Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1. In connection with his guilty plea, Matsunaga was criminally fined 

$20,000 and sentenced to serve one year and one day in a U.S. prison. 

Takata’s Plea Agreement 

117. On October 9, 2013, Defendant Takata Corporation announced that it agreed to 

pay a $71.3 million criminal fine and plead guilty to a one-count criminal Information charging it 

with participating in a conspiracy to rig bids for, and to fix, stabilize, and maintain the prices of 

seatbelts sold to manufacturers, including, Toyota, Honda, Nissan, Fuji Heavy Industries, Ltd. 

(Subaru), and Mazda, in the United States and elsewhere from at least as early as January 1, 2003 

and continuing until at least February 2011 in violation of the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1. 

According to the Information filed, Defendant Takata Corporation and its co-conspirators carried 

Case 2:15-cv-12050-MOB-MKM ECF No. 1 filed 06/05/15 PageID.32 Page 32 of 103
 33 

out the Occupant Safety Restraint Systems conspiracy by: (a) participating in meetings, 

conversations, and communications to discuss the bids and price quotations to be submitted to 

manufacturers for Occupant Safety Restraint Systems; (b) agreeing, during those meetings, 

conversations, and communications, on bids and price quotations to be submitted to 

manufacturers for Occupant Safety Restraint Systems; (c) agreeing, during those meetings, 

conversations, and communications, to allocate the supply of Occupant Safety Restraint Systems 

sold to manufacturers on a model-by-model basis; (d) submitting bids and price quotations to 

manufacturers in accordance with the agreements reached; (e) selling Occupant Safety Restraint 

Systems to manufacturers at collusive and noncompetitive prices; and (f) accepting payment for 

Occupant Safety Restraint Systems sold to manufacturers at collusive and noncompetitive prices. 

118. On November 21, 2013, the DOJ announced that three high-level Takata 

executives, Yasuhiko Ueno, Saburo Imamiya, and, Yoshinobu Fujino pleaded guilty to three 

separate one-count criminal Informations charging them with participating in a conspiracy to 

suppress and eliminate competition in the parts industry by agreeing to rig bids for, and to fix, 

stabilize, and maintain the prices of seatbelts sold to Toyota, Honda, Nissan, Fuji Heavy 

Industries, Ltd. (Subaru), and Mazda in the United States and elsewhere in violation of the 

Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1. In connection with their guilty pleas, the Takata executives were 

criminally fined $20,000 each and sentenced to serve between 14 and 19 months in U.S. prison. 

Ueno’s criminal Information notes that he was employed by Defendant TK Holdings Inc., in the 

United States as senior vice president for sales for Japanese manufacturers from at least January 

2006 through December 2007. 

119. A fourth Takata executive, Gary Walker - employed by Defendant TK Holdings, 

Inc. - pleaded guilty to a one-count criminal Information charging him with participating in a 

Case 2:15-cv-12050-MOB-MKM ECF No. 1 filed 06/05/15 PageID.33 Page 33 of 103
 34 

conspiracy to suppress and eliminate competition in the parts industry by agreeing to rig bids for, 

and to fix, stabilize, and maintain the prices of certain seatbelts sold to Toyota, Honda, Nissan, 

Fuji Heavy Industries (Subaru) and Mazda in the United States and elsewhere in violation of the 

Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1. In connection with his guilty plea, Walker was criminally fined 

$20,000 and sentenced to serve 14 months in a U.S. prison. A fifth Takata executive, Gikou 

Nakajima, was indicted on June 5, 2014 for his participation in a conspiracy to suppress and 

eliminate competition in the parts industry by agreeing to rig bids for, and to fix, stabilize, and 

maintain the prices of seatbelts sold to Honda, Nissan, Fuji Heavy Industries (Subaru) and 

Mazda in the United States and elsewhere in violation of the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1. 

120. On January 22, 2015, the DOJ announced that a Detroit federal grand jury 

returned a one count indictment against an executive at Takata Corp. for conspiring to rig bids 

for, and to fix, stabilize and maintain the prices of, seatbelts sold to Toyota Motor Corp., Honda 

Motor Company Ltd., Nissan Motor Co., Ltd., Mazda Motor Corp., Fuji Heavy Industries Ltd., 

and/or certain of their subsidiaries, for installation in vehicles manufactured and sold in the 

United States and elsewhere, through at least February 2011. 

TRW’s Plea Agreement 

121. Defendant TRW Germany has agreed to plead guilty and agreed to pay a total of 

$5.1 million in criminal fines concerning a two-count criminal investigation for fixing the prices 

of seatbelts, steering wheels and airbags. TRW Germany has admitted to conspiring with others 

to suppress and eliminate competition in the parts industry by agreeing to rig bids for, and to fix, 

stabilize, and maintain the prices of Occupant Safety Restraint Systems sold to certain 

manufacturers in the United States and elsewhere at various times from at least as early as 

January 2008 to until at least June 2011 in violation of the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1. Among 

Case 2:15-cv-12050-MOB-MKM ECF No. 1 filed 06/05/15 PageID.34 Page 34 of 103
 35 

other things, TRW Germany admitted to: (a) participating in meetings, conversations, and 

communications to discuss the bids and price quotations to be submitted to certain manufacturers 

for Occupant Safety Restraint Systems; (b) agreeing, during those meetings, conversations, and 

communications, on bids and price quotations to be submitted to certain manufacturers for 

Occupant Safety Restraint Systems; (c) agreeing, during those meetings, conversations, and 

communications, to allocate the supply of Occupant Safety Restraint Systems sold to certain 

manufacturers on a model-by-model basis; (d) agreeing, during those meetings, conversations, 

and communications, to coordinate price adjustments requested by certain manufacturers; (e) 

submitting bids and price quotations to certain manufacturers in accordance with the agreements 

reached; (f) selling Occupant Safety Restraint Systems to certain manufacturers at collusive and 

noncompetitive prices; (g) accepting payment for Occupant Safety Restraint Systems sold to 

certain manufacturers at collusive and noncompetitive prices; and (h) engaging in meetings, 

conversations and communications for the purpose of monitoring and enforcing adherence to the 

agreed upon bid rigging and price-fixing scheme. 

122. The plea agreement requires it and its subsidiaries to cooperate with the DOJ, 

including producing documents in their control and providing their “directors, officers and 

employees” for interviews and the provision of testimony in grand jury, trial and other judicial 

proceedings. 

123. The plea agreement further provides that upon acceptance of the agreement, the 

United States will not bring further criminal charges against, among other entities, TRW 

Germany’s subsidiaries arising out of the conspiracy. 

124. Pursuant to the plea agreement, TRW Germany agreed that if the United States 

determines that it or its subsidiaries fail to provide truthful and continuing cooperation, the 

Case 2:15-cv-12050-MOB-MKM ECF No. 1 filed 06/05/15 PageID.35 Page 35 of 103
 36 

United could elect to subject TRW Germany or its subsidiaries to criminal prosecution and that 

the United States would have the right, among other things, to prosecute both TRW Germany 

and its subsidiaries for the conspiracy set forth in the plea agreement. 

Tokai Rika’s Plea Agreement 

125. On December 12, 2012, Tokai Rika agreed to pay a $17.7 million fine and plead 

guilty to a two-count criminal information charging Tokai Rika with participating in a 

combination and conspiracy with its co-conspirators to suppress and eliminate competition in the 

parts industry by agreeing to rig bids for, and to fix, stabilize, and maintain the prices of Heater 

Control Panels sold to a manufacturer from at least September 2003 until at least February 2010 

in violation of the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1. 

126. The information also charged Tokai Rika and one of its executives with 

obstruction of justice for directing employees to delete electronic data and destroy paper 

documents, which destroyed evidence relevant to the government’s investigation into Tokai 

Rika’s antitrust violations in violation of 15 U.S.C. § 1512(b)(2)(B). Tokai Rika’s plea 

agreement states “[a]fter becoming aware of the FBI search of the defendant’s United States 

subsidiary, an executive of the defendant directed employees to delete electronic data and 

destroy paper documents likely to contain evidence of antitrust crimes. As a result, electronic 

data were deleted and paper documents were destroyed, including data and documents 

evidencing antitrust crimes, and some of the deleted electronic data and destroyed paper 

documents were non-recoverable.” 

127. Tokai Rika’s plea agreement requires it and its subsidiaries to cooperate with the 

DOJ, including producing documents in their control and providing their “directors, officers and 

employees . . .” for “interviews and the provision of testimony in grand jury, trial and other 

judicial proceedings . . . .” 

Case 2:15-cv-12050-MOB-MKM ECF No. 1 filed 06/05/15 PageID.36 Page 36 of 103
 37 

128. According to the criminal information filed against Tokai Rika, Tokai Rika and 

its co-conspirators carried out the conspiracy by: (a) participating in meetings, conversations, and 

communications in the United States and Japan to discuss the bids and price quotations; 

agreeing, during those meetings, conversations, and communications, on bids and price 

quotations to be submitted; (c) agreeing, during those meetings, conversations, and 

communications, to allocate the supply of [Heater Control Panels]; (d) agreeing, during those 

meetings, conversations, and communications, to coordinate price adjustments; (e) submitting 

bids, price quotations, and price adjustments in accordance with the agreements reached; selling 

[Heater Control Panels] in the United States and elsewhere at collusive and noncompetitive 

prices; (g) accepting payment for [Heater Control Panels] sold at collusive and noncompetitive 

prices; (h) engaging in meetings, conversations, and communications in the United States and 

elsewhere for the purpose of monitoring and enforcing adherence to the agreed-upon bid-rigging 

and price-fixing scheme; and (i) employing measures to keep their conduct secret, including 

using code names and choosing meeting places and times to avoid detection. 

129. Tokai Rika’s plea agreement states that during a period from at least as early as 

September 2003 until at least February 2010 Tokai Rika’s sales of Heater Control Panels subject 

to the conspiracy totaled approximately $73.6 million. 

130. Tokai Rika’s plea agreement is evidence of its participation in the conspiracy for 

vehicle parts generally, including Occupant Safety Restraint Systems, which Tokai Rika also 

sells. 

E. Additional Criminal Pleas Related to Conspiracies in the Vehicle Parts 

Industry 

131. In addition to Autoliv, Inc., Takata, TRW Germany, and Tokai Rika, a number of 

other manufacturers of vehicle parts have pleaded guilty, or agreed to plead guilty, to price fixing 

Case 2:15-cv-12050-MOB-MKM ECF No. 1 filed 06/05/15 PageID.37 Page 37 of 103
 38 

and bid rigging in the vehicle parts industry, including: Furukawa Electric Co., Ltd.; Yazaki 

Corp.; G.S. Electech, Inc.; Fujikura Ltd.; Denso Corporation; and Nippon Seiki Co. Ltd. These 

companies have pleaded guilty to engaging in the same conduct as Autoliv, Inc. with regard to 

Vehicle Wire Harness Systems, Instrument Panel Clusters, Fuel Senders and Heater Control 

Panels. The majority of these violators pleaded guilty to engaging in bid-rigging, price-fixing, 

and market allocation during the same time period as Autoliv, Inc. with multiple OEMs as their 

targets. 

132. On September 29, 2011, the DOJ announced that Defendant Furukawa Electric 

had agreed to plead guilty and to pay a $200 million fine for its role in a criminal price-fixing 

and bid-rigging conspiracy involving the sale of Vehicle Wire Harness Systems to automobile 

manufacturers. Three Furukawa executives, who are Japanese nationals, also agreed to plead 

guilty and to serve prison time in the United States. 

133. On January 30, 2012, Yazaki Corporation and four of its executives, Tsuneaki 

Hanamura (“Hanamura”), Ryoji Kawai (“Kawai”), Shigeru Ogawa (“Ogawa”) and Hisamitsu 

Takada (“Takada”), agreed to plead guilty to conspiring to rig bids, fix prices and allocate 

customers for Vehicle Wire Harness Systems from January 2000 until at least February 2010. 

134. Denso Corporation has pleaded guilty and agreed to pay a total of $78 million in 

criminal fines concerning a two-count criminal information charging Denso Corporation with: 

(1) participating in a combination and conspiracy with its co-conspirators to suppress and 

eliminate competition in the automotive parts industry by agreeing to rig bids for, and to fix, 

stabilize, and maintain the prices of body electronic control units sold to an automobile 

manufacturer in the United States and elsewhere from at least as early as January 2000 and 

continuing until at least February 2010 in violation of the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1; (2) 

Case 2:15-cv-12050-MOB-MKM ECF No. 1 filed 06/05/15 PageID.38 Page 38 of 103
 39 

participating in a combination and conspiracy with its co-conspirators to suppress and eliminate 

competition in the automotive parts industry by agreeing to rig bids for, and to fix, stabilize, and 

maintain the prices of Vehicle Wire Harness Systems sold to an automobile manufacturer in the 

United States and elsewhere from at least as early as January 2000 and continuing until at least 

February 2010 in violation of the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1. 

135. On April 3, 2012, G.S. Electech Inc. agreed to plead guilty to “participat[ing] in a 

combination and conspiracy to suppress and eliminate competition in the automotive industry by 

agreeing to rig bids for, and to fix stabilize, and maintain the prices of, speed sensor wire 

assemblies sold to an automobile manufacturer in the United States and elsewhere.” 

136. On April 23, 2012, Fujikura, Inc. agreed to plead guilty to participating in the 

conspiracy to fix prices, rig bids and allocate supply with regard to Vehicle Wire Harness 

Systems,4 between January 2006 and February 2010. 

137. On August 28, 2012, the DOJ announced that Nippon Seiki Co. Ltd. had agreed to 

plead guilty and to pay a $1 million criminal fine for its role in a conspiracy to fix prices of 

instrument panel clusters installed in vehicles sold in the United States and elsewhere. 

138. On July 16, 2013, the DOJ announced that Diamond Electric Mfg. Co. Ltd. had 

agreed to plead guilty and to pay a $19 million criminal fine for its role in a conspiracy to fix 

prices of ignition coils sold to Ford Motor Co., Toyota Motor Corp., Fuji Heavy Industries Ltd. 

and certain of their subsidiaries and installed in vehicles sold in the United States and elsewhere. 

139. In the press release announcing the fine against Diamond Electric Mfg. Co. Ltd., 

Robert D. Foley III, Agent in Charge, FBI Detroit Division said “[t]hose who engage in price 

fixing, bid rigging and other fraudulent schemes harm the automotive industry by driving up 

costs for vehicle makers and buyers.” 

Case 2:15-cv-12050-MOB-MKM ECF No. 1 filed 06/05/15 PageID.39 Page 39 of 103
 40 

140. On July 18, 2013, Panasonic Corporation agreed to plead guilty and to pay a 

$45.8 million criminal fine for its role in a conspiracy to fix prices of switches, steering angle 

sensors and automotive high intensity discharge (HID) ballasts sold to Toyota Motor Corp., 

Toyota Motor Engineering & Manufacturing North America Inc., Honda Motor Co. Ltd., 

American Honda Motor Co., Inc., Mazda Motor Corp., Mazda Motor of America Inc., Nissan 

Motor Co. Ltd., and Nissan North America Inc. and installed in vehicles sold in the United States 

and elsewhere. 

141. On September 26, 2013, nine additional Japanese motor vehicle suppliers agreed 

to plead guilty to conspiracy charges and pay more than $740 million in criminal fines for their 

roles in rigging the prices of more than 30 different products sold to Chrysler, Ford, and General 

Motors, as well as to the U.S. subsidiaries of Honda, Mazda, Mitsubishi, Nissan, Toyota, and 

Fuji Heavy Industries: 

(a) Hitachi Automotive Systems Ltd. agreed to plead guilty and to pay a $195 million 

criminal fine for its participation in a conspiracy to rig bids for, and to fix, stabilize and maintain 

the prices of motor vehicle parts including starter motors, alternators, air flow meters, valve 

timing control devices, fuel injection systems, electronic throttle bodies, ignition coils, inverters 

and motor generators sold to motor vehicle manufacturers in the United States and elsewhere; 

(b) Mitsuba Corporation agreed to plead guilty and to pay a $135 million criminal 

fine for its participation in a conspiracy to rig bids for, and to fix, stabilize and maintain the 

prices of motor vehicle parts including fan motors, windshield washer systems and components, 

windshield wiper systems and components, starter motors, and power window motors sold to 

motor vehicle manufacturers in the United States and elsewhere. Defendant Mitsuba 

Corporation also agreed to plead guilty to one count of obstruction of justice, because of the 

Case 2:15-cv-12050-MOB-MKM ECF No. 1 filed 06/05/15 PageID.40 Page 40 of 103
 41 

company’s efforts to destroy evidence ordered by a high-level U.S.-based executive after 

learning of the U.S. investigation of collusion in the parts industry; 

(c) Mitsubishi Electric Corporation agreed to plead guilty and to pay a $190 million 

criminal fine for its participation in a conspiracy to rig bids for, and to fix, stabilize and maintain 

the prices of numerous motor vehicle parts sold to motor vehicle manufacturers in the United 

States and elsewhere; 

(d) Mitsubishi Heavy Industries Ltd. agreed to plead guilty and to pay a $14.5 million 

criminal fine for its participation in a conspiracy to rig bids for, and to fix, stabilize and maintain 

the prices of compressors and condensers sold to motor vehicle manufacturers in the United 

States and elsewhere; 

(e) T.RAD Co. Ltd. agreed to plead guilty and to pay a $13.75 million criminal fine 

for its participation in a conspiracy to rig bids for, and to fix, stabilize and maintain the prices of 

radiators and automatic transmission fluid warmers (ATF warmers) sold to motor vehicle 

manufacturers in the United States and elsewhere; 

(f) Valeo Japan Co. Ltd. agreed to plead guilty and to pay a $13.6 million criminal 

fine for its participation in a conspiracy to allocate the supply of, rig bids for, and to fix, stabilize 

and maintain the pries of air conditioning systems sold to motor vehicle manufacturers in the 

United States and elsewhere; 

(g) JTEKT Corporation agreed to plead guilty and to pay a $103.27 million criminal 

fine for its participation in a conspiracy to allocate markets, to rig bids for, and to fix, stabilize 

and maintain the prices of bearings and electric powered steering assemblies sold to motor 

vehicle manufacturers in the United States and elsewhere; 

Case 2:15-cv-12050-MOB-MKM ECF No. 1 filed 06/05/15 PageID.41 Page 41 of 103
 42 

(h) NSK Ltd. agreed to plead guilty and to pay a $68.2 million criminal fine for its 

participation in a conspiracy to allocate markets, to rig bids for, and to fix, stabilize and maintain 

the prices of bearings sold to a motor vehicle manufacturer in the United States and elsewhere; 

and 

(i) Yamashita Rubber Co. Ltd. agreed to plead guilty and to pay a $11 million 

criminal fine for its participation in a conspiracy to rig bids for, and to fix, raise and maintain the 

prices of anti-vibration rubber products sold in the United States and elsewhere to motor vehicle 

manufacturers. 

142. On the same day, September 26, 2013, United States Attorney General Eric 

Holder in the Antitrust Division presented the DOJ’s most recent findings in the ongoing motor 

vehicle parts investigation. He stated “[t]hese international price-fixing conspiracies affected 

more than $5 billion in automobile parts sold to U.S. car manufacturers.” Holder also described 

how the conspiracies worked: “[c]ompany executives met face to face in the United States and 

Japan – and talked on the phone – to reach collusive agreements to rig bids, fix prices and 

allocate the supply of auto parts sold to U.S. car companies. In order to keep their illegal 

conduct secret, they used code names and met in remote locations. Then they followed up with 

each other regularly to make sure the collusive agreements were being adhered to.” Attorney 

General Holder explained that the vehicle parts conspiracies “targeted U.S. manufacturing, U.S. 

businesses and U.S. consumers. As a result of these conspiracies, Americans paid more for their 

cars.” 

143. The diagram below, which was prepared by the DOJ, illustrates the September 26, 

2013 guilty pleas and the corresponding automotive parts to which the various motor vehicle 

manufacturers have admitted price-fixing. 

Case 2:15-cv-12050-MOB-MKM ECF No. 1 filed 06/05/15 PageID.42 Page 42 of 103
14

had agree

conspirac

installed 

14

agreed to

conspirac

Corp., Ni

affiliates

14

agreed to

44. On No

ed to plead g

cies to fix th

in motor veh

45. On No

o plead guilty

cy to fix pric

issan Motor 

, and supplie

46. On Ja

o plead guilty

ovember 26,

guilty and to

he prices of c

hicles sold in

ovember 27,

y and to pay

ces of high-i

Corp., and F

ers and insta

nuary 16, 20

y and to pay

, 2013, the D

 pay a $120 

components 

n the United

, 2013, the D

y a $1.44 mil

ntensity disc

Fuji Heavy I

alled in moto

014, the DOJ

y a $56.6 mil

43 

DOJ announc

million crim

involving an

d States and e

DOJ announc

llion crimina

charge (HID

Industries Lt

or vehicles so

J announced

llion crimina

ced that Toy

minal fine fo

nti-vibration

elsewhere. 

ced that Stan

al fine for its

D) lamp balla

td. and certa

old in the Un

d that Koito M

al fine for its

yo Tire & Ru

r its role in t

n rubber and 

nley Electric

s participatio

asts sold to T

ain of their su

nited States 

Manufacturi

s roles in sep

ubber Co. Lt

two separate

driveshaft p

c Co. Ltd. ha

on in a 

Toyota Moto

ubsidiaries, 

and elsewhe

ing Co. Ltd. 

parate pricetd. 

e

parts 

ad 

or 

ere. 

had 

Case 2:15-cv-12050-MOB-MKM ECF No. 1 filed 06/05/15 PageID.43 Page 43 of 103
 44 

fixing conspiracies involving motor vehicle lighting fixtures and high-intensity discharge (HID) 

lamp ballasts installed in motor vehicles sold in the United States and elsewhere. 

147. On February 3, 2014, the DOJ announced that Aisan Industry Co. Ltd. had agreed 

to plead guilty and to pay a $6.86 million criminal fine for its role in a price-fixing conspiracy 

involving electronic throttle bodies sold to Nissan Motor Co. Ltd. and certain of its subsidiaries 

in the United States and elsewhere. 

148. On February 13, 2014, the DOJ announced that Bridgestone Corp. had agreed to 

plead guilty and to pay a $425 million criminal fine for its role in a conspiracy to fix prices of 

anti-vibration rubber parts sold to Toyota Motor Corp., Nissan Motor Corp., Fuji Heavy 

Industries Ltd., Suzuki Motor Corp., Isuzu Motors Ltd., and certain of their subsidiaries, 

affiliates, and suppliers and installed in motor vehicles sold in the United States and elsewhere. 

149. On April 23, 2014, the DOJ announced that Showa Corp. agreed to plead guilty 

and to pay a $19.9 million criminal fine for its role in a conspiracy to fix prices and rig bids for 

pinion-assist type electric powered steering assemblies sold to Honda Motor Co. Ltd. and certain 

of its subsidiaries and installed in motor vehicles sold in the United States and elsewhere. 

150. On August 19, 2014, the DOJ announced that NGK Spark Plug Co. Ltd. agreed to 

plead guilty and to pay a $52.1 million criminal fine for its role in a conspiracy to fix prices and 

rig bids for spark plugs, standard oxygen sensors, and air fuel ratio sensors sold to manufacturers 

such as DaimlerChrysler AG, Honda Motor Co. Ltd., and Toyota Motor Corp. and installed in 

motor vehicles sold in the United States and elsewhere. 

151. On November 13, 2014, the DOJ announced that Aisin Seiki Co. Ltd. agreed to 

plead guilty and to pay a $35.8 million criminal fine for its role in a conspiracy to allocate 

customers of variable valve timing devices sold to various manufacturers including General 

Case 2:15-cv-12050-MOB-MKM ECF No. 1 filed 06/05/15 PageID.44 Page 44 of 103
 45 

Motors Company, Nissan Motor Company Ltd., Volvo Car Corporation, and BMW AG, in the 

United States and elsewhere. 

152. On November 14, 2014, the DOJ announced that a federal grand jury returned a 

one-count indictment against two executives of NSK Ltd. and JTEKT Corporation for conspiring 

to fix the prices of bearings sold to Toyota Motor Corporation and Toyota Motor Engineering & 

Manufacturing North America Inc. in the United States and elsewhere, through at least July 

2011. 

153. On November 24, 2014, Continental Automotive Electronics LLC and 

Continental Automotive Korea Ltd. agreed to plead guilty and pay a single criminal fine of $4 

million for their roles in a conspiracy to rig bids of instrument panel clusters sold to Hyundai 

Motor Co., Kia Motors Corp. and Kia Motors Manufacturing Georgia in the United States and 

elsewhere. 

154. On December 1, 2014, the DOJ announced that a former executive of Mitsuba 

Corporation agreed to plead guilty and serve 13 months in a U.S. prison for conspiring to fix the 

prices of windshield wiper systems and starter motors sold to Honda Motor Co. Ltd. and its 

subsidiaries and affiliates in the United States and elsewhere. 

155. On December 1, 2014, the DOJ announced that an executive of T.RAD Co. Ltd. 

agreed to plead guilty and to serve one year and one day in a U.S. prison for participating in a 

conspiracy to fix princes of radiators sold to Honda Motor Co. Ltd. and certain of its subsidiaries 

in the United States and elsewhere. 

156. On January 27, 2015, the DOJ announced that Sanden Corp. agreed to plead 

guilty and to pay a $3.2 million criminal fine for its role in a conspiracy to suppress and 

eliminate competition for the purchase of compressors used in air conditioning systems sold to 

Case 2:15-cv-12050-MOB-MKM ECF No. 1 filed 06/05/15 PageID.45 Page 45 of 103
 46 

Nissan North America Inc. for installation in vehicles manufactured and sold in the United States 

and elsewhere. 

157. On February 5, 2015, the DOJ announced that a Detroit federal grand jury 

returned a two-count indictment against two former executives of Mitsuba Corporation for their 

role in conspiring to fix the prices of various vehicle parts, including windshield wiper systems 

and components, sold to Honda Motor Company Ltd., Nissan Motor Co., Ltd., Toyota Motor 

Co., Ltd., Chrysler Group, LLC, and Fuji Heavy Industries Ltd., and certain of their subsidiaries 

in the United States and elsewhere. The executives are also charged with knowingly and 

corruptly persuading, and attempting to persuade, employees of Mitsuba to destroy documents 

and delete electronic data that may contain evidence of antitrust crimes in the United States and 

elsewhere. 

158. On March 31, 2015, the DOJ announced that Robert Bosch GmbH agreed to 

plead guilty and to pay a $57.8 million criminal fine for its role in a conspiracy to fix prices and 

rig bids for spark plugs, oxygen sensors, and starter motors to vehicle and internal combustion 

engine manufacturers such as DaimlerChrysler AG, Ford Motor Company, General Motors 

Company, and Adreas Stihl AG & Co., among others, in the United States and elsewhere, until at 

least July 2011. Bosch was also charged with participating in a conspiracy to allocate the supply 

of, rig bids for, and to fix, stabilize and maintain the prices of, starter motors sold to Volkswagen 

AG and certain subsidiaries in the United States through at least June 2010. 

159. On April 23, 2015, an executive of Hitachi Automotive Systems Ltd. pleaded 

guilty and was sentenced to serve 15 months in a U.S. prison for his role in conspiring to allocate 

the supply of, rig bids for, and fix, stabilize, and maintain the price of various parts including 

starter motors, alternators, air flow meters, valve timing control devices, fuel injection systems, 

Case 2:15-cv-12050-MOB-MKM ECF No. 1 filed 06/05/15 PageID.46 Page 46 of 103
 47 

electronic throttle bodies, ignition coils and inverters and/or motor generators, to manufacturers 

including Ford Motor Co., General Motors LLC, Nissan Motor Co. Ltd., Toyota Motor Corp., 

and Honda Motor Co. Ltd., and certain of their subsidiaries. 

160. On April 28, 2015, the DOJ announced that Yamada Manufacturing Co. Ltd. 

agreed to plead guilty and to pay a $2.5 million criminal fine for its role in a conspiracy to fix 

prices and rig bids for manual steering columns sold to certain subsidiaries of Honda Motor Co. 

in the United States and elsewhere, continuing until as late as September 2012. 

161. On May 14, 2015 the DOJ announced that a Detroit federal grand jury returned a 

one count indictment against the former executive managing director of T.RAD Co. Ltd. for his 

role in conspiring to fix the prices of radiators sold to Honda Motor Co. Ltd., Toyota Motor 

Corp., and certain of their subsidiaries in the United States and elsewhere. 

162. To date, 35 companies pleaded or agreed to plead guilty and 53 individuals have 

been charged in the Antitrust Division’s ongoing investigation into price fixing and bid rigging 

in the motor vehicle parts industry. All together, the 35 guilty-pleading companies have paid or 

agreed to pay approximately $2.5 billion in criminal fines. 

F. Investigations involving the sale of parts for Trucks and Equipment 

163. The first public announcements of government investigations and penalties that 

indicated that the conspiracies included parts sold for Equipment was on March 29, 2013, when 

the JFTC issued cease and desist orders and surcharge payment orders based on violations of the 

Japan Antimonopoly Act against NTN Corp., NSK Ltd. and Nachi-Fujikoshi Corp., for 

conspiring to fix prices on “industrial machinery bearings and automotive bearings.” 

164. The first public announcements of government investigations and penalties that 

indicated that the conspiracies included parts sold for Trucks was on March 19, 2014, when the 

EC announced that the “producers of car and truck bearings” had operated a cartel in the market 

Case 2:15-cv-12050-MOB-MKM ECF No. 1 filed 06/05/15 PageID.47 Page 47 of 103
 48 

for bearings sold to “car, truck and car part manufacturers.” The EC fined SKF, Schaeffler, NSK 

Ltd., Nachi-Fujikoshi, and NTN EUR 953 million. JTEKT, which also was found to have 

conspired to fix prices, benefitted from immunity for having revealed the existence of a cartel to 

the EC. 

165. On March 31, 2015, the Department of Justice announced that Robert Bosch 

GmbH had agreed to plead guilty and to pay a $57.8 million criminal fine for its role in a 

conspiracy to fix the prices for parts, including spark plugs, oxygen sensors and starter motors 

“sold to automobile and internal combustion engine manufacturers in the United States and 

elsewhere,” including parts sold to equipment manufacturer Andreas Stihl AG & Co., from at 

least as early as January 2000 until at least July 2011. 

G. Likely Existence of An Amnesty Applicant 

166. The Antitrust Criminal Penalty Enhancement and Reform Act (“ACPERA”) 

provides leniency benefits for a participant in a price-fixing conspiracy that voluntarily discloses 

its conduct to the Department of Justice. In most recent cases in which guilty pleas for pricefixing conduct have been obtained, there has been a cooperating party who has been accepted 

into the DOJ’s ACPERA program as an amnesty applicant. One of the leniency benefits for a 

conspirator that is accepted into the ACPERA program is that the applicant is not charged with a 

criminal offense and is not required to plead guilty to criminal charges. 

167. In light of the multiple guilty pleas in this case, in related vehicle parts antitrust 

cases and the DOJ’s ongoing investigation into the industry, it is reasonable for this Court to 

infer that there is an ACPERA “amnesty applicant” in this case. 

Case 2:15-cv-12050-MOB-MKM ECF No. 1 filed 06/05/15 PageID.48 Page 48 of 103
 49 

H. Damage to Plaintiffs and Other Truck and Equipment Dealers Caused by 

Defendants’ Illegal Activities. 

168. Deputy Assistant Attorney General Scott Hammond, recently stated that the 

vehicle parts cartel is “the biggest [cartel] with respect to the impact on U.S. business and 

consumers.” 

169. Occupant Safety Restraint Systems and many of the motor parts involved in the 

government investigations and proceedings are also used in connection with Trucks and 

Equipment. 

170. Defendants’ conspiracy impacted the market for Trucks and Equipment. 

171. Many of the OEMs identified as having purchased products from members of the 

cartel, including Toyota, Ford, Chrysler, Mitsubishi Motors, Fuji Heavy Industries, Honda, 

Subaru, Isuzu and Nissan, manufacture and sell Trucks and/or Equipment directly or through 

subsidiaries or affiliated companies. 

172. Upon information and belief, many of the Defendants’ employees who were 

involved in negotiating the prices of Occupant Safety Restraint Systems and other parts sold to 

automobile OEMs were the very same individuals involved in negotiations over the pricing on 

sales of the same parts for Trucks and Equipment. 

173. Defendants’ conspiracy resulted in Defendants charging inflated prices to firms 

who directly purchased Occupant Safety Restraint Systems from them and in those purchasers 

raising their prices to subsequent purchasers. 

174. Having paid higher prices for components of the Trucks and Equipment they sold 

to Plaintiffs and the Classes and the Occupant Safety Restraint Systems they sold to Plaintiffs 

and the Classes, firms who sold such Occupant Safety Restraint Systems and Trucks and 

Equipment passed Defendants’ overcharges on to Plaintiffs and the Classes. 

Case 2:15-cv-12050-MOB-MKM ECF No. 1 filed 06/05/15 PageID.49 Page 49 of 103
 50 

175. Plaintiffs and the Classes are entitled to the overcharges they paid for Occupant 

Safety Restraint Systems. 

176. Plaintiffs and the Classes had to and did absorb, at the very least, a significant 

portion of the overcharges that they paid due to Defendants’ illegal activities. 

177. Plaintiffs have standing and have suffered damage compensable by indirect 

purchaser laws and they and members of the classes they seek to represent have sustained 

significant damage and injury as a result of Defendants’ conspiracy. 

CLASS ACTION ALLEGATIONS 

178. Plaintiffs bring this action on behalf of themselves and as a class action under 

Rule 23(a) and (b)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, seeking equitable and injunctive 

relief on behalf of the following class (the “Nationwide Class”): 

All Truck and Equipment dealers that during the Class Period, (a) 

indirectly purchased Occupant Safety Restraint Systems 

manufactured by the Defendants or any current or former 

subsidiary or affiliate thereof or any co-conspirator, or (b) 

purchased Trucks or Equipment containing Occupant Safety 

Restraint Systems manufactured by the Defendants or any current 

or former subsidiary, affiliate thereof or co-conspirator. 

179. Plaintiffs also bring this action on behalf of themselves and as a class action under 

Rule 23(a) and (b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure seeking damages pursuant to the 

antitrust, unfair competition, unjust enrichment and consumer protection laws of the states whose 

laws are set forth in the Second and Third Claims below, (except California as to unjust 

enrichment claims), as well as unjust enrichment laws of Missouri, Massachusetts, Illinois, South 

Carolina, and Tennessee. The states whose laws are set forth in the Second and Third Claims 

below, as well as Missouri, Massachusetts, Illinois, South Carolina, and Tennessee are 

collectively referred to as the “Indirect Purchaser States.” These claims are brought by Plaintiffs 

Case 2:15-cv-12050-MOB-MKM ECF No. 1 filed 06/05/15 PageID.50 Page 50 of 103
 51 

on behalf of themselves and entities in the Indirect Purchaser States listed in the Second, Third 

and Fourth Claims as follows (the “Damages Class”): 

All Truck and Equipment dealers, in the Indirect Purchaser States, 

that, during the Class Period (a) indirectly purchased Occupant 

Safety Restraint Systems manufactured by one of the Defendants 

or any current or former subsidiary or affiliate thereof, or any coconspirator or (b) purchased Trucks or Equipment containing 

Occupant Safety Restraint Systems manufactured by one of the 

Defendants or any current or former subsidiary, affiliate or coconspirator thereof. 

180. The Nationwide Class and the Damages Class are referred to herein as the 

“Classes.” Excluded from the Classes are Defendants, their parent companies, subsidiaries and 

affiliates, any co-conspirators, federal governmental entities, and instrumentalities of the federal 

government, states, and their subdivisions, agencies, and instrumentalities. 

181. Although Plaintiffs do not know the exact number of the members of the Classes, 

Plaintiffs believe there are at least hundreds of members in each Class. 

182. Common questions of law and fact exist as to all members of the Classes. This is 

particularly true given the nature of Defendants’ conspiracy, which was generally applicable to 

all the members of both Classes, thereby making appropriate relief with respect to the Classes as 

a whole. Such questions of law and fact common to the Classes include, but are not limited to: 

(a) Whether Defendants and their co-conspirators engaged in a combination and 

conspiracy among themselves to fix, raise, maintain or stabilize the prices of 

Occupant Safety Restraint Systems sold in the United States; 

(b) The identity of the participants of the alleged conspiracy; 

(c) The duration of the alleged conspiracy and the acts carried out by Defendants and 

their co-conspirators in furtherance of the conspiracy; 

(d) Whether the alleged conspiracy violated the Sherman Act, as alleged in the First 

Claim for Relief; 

Case 2:15-cv-12050-MOB-MKM ECF No. 1 filed 06/05/15 PageID.51 Page 51 of 103
 52 

(e) Whether the alleged conspiracy violated state antitrust and unfair competition 

law, and/or state consumer protection law, as alleged in the Second and Third 

Claims for Relief; 

(f) Whether Defendants unjustly enriched themselves to the detriment of the 

Plaintiffs and the members of the Classes, thereby entitling Plaintiffs and the 

members of the Classes to disgorgement of all benefits derived by Defendants, as 

alleged in the Fourth Claim for Relief; 

(g) Whether the conduct of Defendants and their co-conspirators, as alleged in 

this Complaint, caused injury to the business or property of Plaintiffs and the 

members of the Classes; 

(h) The effect of the alleged conspiracy on the prices of Occupant Safety Restraint 

Systems sold in the United States during the Class Period; 

(i) Whether the Defendants and their co-conspirators fraudulently concealed the 

conspiracy’s existence from the Plaintiffs and the members of the Classes; 

(j) The appropriate injunctive and related equitable relief for the Nationwide Class; 

and 

(k) The appropriate class-wide measure of damages for the Damages Class. 

183. Plaintiffs’ claims are typical of the claims of the members of the Classes, and 

Plaintiffs will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the Classes. Plaintiffs and all 

members of the Classes are similarly affected by Defendants’ wrongful conduct because they 

paid artificially inflated prices for Occupant Safety Restraint Systems purchased indirectly from 

Defendants or their co-conspirators. 

184. Plaintiffs’ claims arise out of the same common course of conduct giving rise to 

the claims of the other members of the Classes. Plaintiffs’ interests are coincident with, and not 

antagonistic to, those of the other members of the Classes. Plaintiffs are represented by counsel 

who are competent and experienced in the prosecution of antitrust and class action litigation. 

185. The questions of law and fact common to the members of the Classes 

predominate over any questions affecting only individual members, including legal and factual 

issues relating to liability and damages. 

Case 2:15-cv-12050-MOB-MKM ECF No. 1 filed 06/05/15 PageID.52 Page 52 of 103
 53 

186. Class action treatment is a superior method for the fair and efficient adjudication 

of the controversy, in that, among other things, such treatment will permit a large number of 

similarly situated persons to prosecute their common claims in a single forum simultaneously, 

efficiently and without the unnecessary duplication of evidence, effort, and expense that 

numerous individual actions would engender. The benefits of proceeding through the class 

mechanism provide injured entities with a method for obtaining redress for claims that might not 

be practicable to pursue individually and substantially outweigh any difficulties that may arise in 

the management of this class action. 

187. The prosecution of separate actions by individual members of the Classes would 

create a risk of inconsistent or varying adjudications, establishing incompatible standards of 

conduct for Defendants. 

PLAINTIFFS AND THE CLASSES SUFFERED ANTITRUST INJURY 

188. Defendants’ price-fixing conspiracy had the following effects, among others: 

(a) Price competition has been restrained or eliminated with respect to Occupant 

Safety Restraint Systems; 

(b) The prices of Occupant Safety Restraint Systems have been fixed, raised, 

maintained, or stabilized at artificially inflated levels; 

(c) Defendants charged purchasers of their Occupant Safety Restraint Systems 

inflated, fixed and stabilized prices for such Occupant Safety Restraint Systems; 

(d) Having paid higher prices for components of the Trucks and Equipment they sold 

to Plaintiffs and the Classes and the Occupant Safety Restraint Systems they sold to Plaintiffs 

and the Classes, firms who sold Defendants’ Occupant Safety Restraint Systems and Trucks and 

Equipment to Plaintiffs and the Classes passed Defendants’ overcharges on to them; 

(e) Defendants’ overcharges passed through each level of distribution as they traveled 

to Plaintiffs and the Classes; and 

(f) Truck and Equipment dealers purchasing Occupant Safety Restraint Systems and 

vehicles containing Occupant Safety Restraint Systems have been deprived of free and open 

competition. 

Case 2:15-cv-12050-MOB-MKM ECF No. 1 filed 06/05/15 PageID.53 Page 53 of 103
 54 

189. During the Class Period, Plaintiffs and the members of the Classes paid 

supracompetitive prices for Occupant Safety Restraint Systems, as a result of Defendants’ 

conspiracy. 

190. An increase in the prices of Occupant Safety Restraint Systems caused an increase 

in the price of Trucks and Equipment during the Class Period. 

191. The market for Occupant Safety Restraint Systems and the market for vehicles, 

including Trucks and Equipment are inextricably linked and intertwined because the market for 

Occupant Safety Restraint Systems exists to serve the vehicle market. Without the vehicles, the 

Occupant Safety Restraint Systems have little to no value because they have no independent 

utility and must be inserted into vehicles to serve any function. Indeed, the demand for vehicles 

creates the demand for Occupant Safety Restraint Systems. 

192. Occupant Safety Restraint Systems are identifiable, discrete physical products that 

remain essentially unchanged when incorporated into a vehicle and are not altered during the 

manufacturing process. As a result, Occupant Safety Restraint Systems follow a traceable 

physical chain of distribution from the Defendants to Plaintiffs and the members of the Classes, 

and any costs attributable to Occupant Safety Restraint Systems can be traced through the chain 

of distribution to Plaintiffs and the members of the Classes. 

193. Just as Occupant Safety Restraint Systems can be physically traced through the 

supply chain, so can their price be traced to show that changes in the prices paid by direct 

purchasers of Occupant Safety Restraint Systems affect prices paid by indirect purchasers of new 

Trucks and Equipment containing Occupant Safety Restraint Systems. 

194. Occupant Safety Restraint Systems have their own part numbers, which permit 

them to be tracked. 

Case 2:15-cv-12050-MOB-MKM ECF No. 1 filed 06/05/15 PageID.54 Page 54 of 103
 55 

195. Occupant Safety Restraint Systems are pieces of sophisticated equipment that are 

necessary to operate a vehicle. 

196. Occupant Safety Restraint Systems are found in every modern vehicle and can be 

removed from a finished vehicle and replaced. 

197. The Occupant Safety Restraint Systems subject to Defendants’ conspiracy and at 

issue in this lawsuit only have one use: to be inserted into vehicles, including Trucks and 

Equipment. Whether Occupant Safety Restraint Systems are sold by themselves or in vehicles, 

their purpose is to be inserted into vehicles to protect drivers and passengers from bodily harm. 

198. Occupant Safety Restraint Systems comprise a not insignificant portion of the 

cost of a vehicle. 

199. The purpose of the conspiratorial conduct of the Defendants and their coconspirators was to raise, fix, rig, or stabilize the price of Occupant Safety Restraint Systems 

and, as a direct and foreseeable result, the price of new vehicles containing Occupant Safety 

Restraint Systems and the price of Occupant Safety Restraint Systems purchased for repair 

purposes. Economists have developed techniques to isolate and understand the relationship 

between one “explanatory” variable and a “dependent” variable in those cases when changes in 

the dependent variable are explained by changes in a multitude of variables, even when all such 

variables may be changing simultaneously. That analysis—called regression analysis—is 

commonly used in the real world and in litigation to determine the impact of a price increase on 

one cost in a product or service that is an assemblage of costs. Thus, it is possible to isolate and 

identify only the impact of an increase in the price of Occupant Safety Restraint Systems on 

prices for new Trucks and Equipment even though such products contain a number of other 

components whose prices may be changing over time. A regression model can explain how 

Case 2:15-cv-12050-MOB-MKM ECF No. 1 filed 06/05/15 PageID.55 Page 55 of 103
 56 

variation in the price of Occupant Safety Restraint Systems affects changes in the price of new 

Trucks and Equipment. In such models, the price of Occupant Safety Restraint Systems would be 

treated as an independent or explanatory variable. The model can isolate how changes in the 

price of Occupant Safety Restraint Systems impact the price of new Trucks and Equipment 

containing Occupant Safety Restraint Systems while controlling for the impact of other pricedetermining factors. 

200. The precise amount of the overcharge impacting the prices of new Trucks and 

Equipment containing Occupant Safety Restraint Systems can be measured and quantified. 

Commonly used and well-accepted economic models can be used to measure both the extent and 

the amount of the supra-competitive charge passed through the chain of distribution. Thus, the 

economic harm to Plaintiffs and members of the Classes can be quantified. 

201. By reason of the alleged violations of the antitrust laws, Plaintiffs and the 

members of the Classes have sustained injury to their businesses or property, having paid higher 

prices for Occupant Safety Restraint Systems than they would have paid in the absence of 

Defendants’ illegal contract, combination, or conspiracy, and, as a result, have suffered damages 

in an amount presently undetermined. This is an antitrust injury of the type that the antitrust laws 

were meant to punish and prevent and Plaintiffs’ and Class members’ damages are measureable. 

PLAINTIFFS’ CLAIMS ARE NOT BARRED BY THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS 

A. The Statute of Limitations Did Not Begin to Run Because Plaintiffs Did Not 

and Could Not Discover the Claims 

202. Plaintiffs repeat and reallege the allegations set forth above. 

203. Plaintiffs and the members of the Classes had no knowledge that the combination 

or conspiracy alleged herein involved Trucks and Equipment, or of facts sufficient to place them 

on inquiry notice of the claims set forth herein until the public announcement by the JFTC on 

Case 2:15-cv-12050-MOB-MKM ECF No. 1 filed 06/05/15 PageID.56 Page 56 of 103
 57 

March 29, 2013 of investigations and fines in connection with the sale of bearings for industrial 

machinery and the public announcement by the EC on March 19, 2014 of investigations and 

fines in connection with the sale of bearings to truck manufacturers. 

204. Plaintiffs and the members of the Classes had no means of obtaining any facts or 

information concerning any aspect of Defendants’ dealings with OEMs or other direct 

purchasers, much less the fact that they had engaged in the combination and conspiracy alleged 

herein with respect to parts for Trucks and Equipment prior to the announcements by the JFTC 

and EC on March 29, 2013 and March 14, 2014. 

205. Although there was disclosure of certain facts indicating that the government 

investigations involved price-fixing for automotive parts, no information in the public domain 

was available to the Plaintiffs and the members of the Classes that Trucks and Equipment were 

involved in the conspiracy being investigated by the government enforcement agencies prior to 

the public announcement of the JFTC’s and EC’s enforcement activity. 

206. Plaintiffs and members of the Classes did not discover, and could not have 

discovered through the exercise of reasonable diligence, the existence of the conspiracy alleged 

herein with respect to Trucks and Equipment until the announcements of the government 

investigations by the JFTC and EC on March 29, 2013 and/or March 14, 2014. 

207. Plaintiffs and the members of the Classes are Truck and Equipment dealers who 

had no direct contact or interaction with any of the Defendants in this case and had no means 

from which they could have discovered the combination and conspiracy described in this 

Complaint until the public announcement of the JFTC’s enforcement activity on March 29, 2013 

and the EC’s enforcement activity on March 14, 2014. 

Case 2:15-cv-12050-MOB-MKM ECF No. 1 filed 06/05/15 PageID.57 Page 57 of 103
 58 

208. For these reasons, the statute of limitations as to Plaintiffs’ and the Classes’ 

claims did not begin to run, and has been tolled with respect to the claims that Plaintiffs and the 

members of the Classes have alleged in this Complaint.. 

B. Fraudulent Concealment Tolled the Statute of Limitations 

209. Defendants’ agreements, understandings and conspiracies with respect to Trucks 

and Equipment were kept secret and, Plaintiffs and members of the Classes were unaware of 

Defendants’ unlawful conduct and that they were paying supracompetitive prices for parts in 

Trucks and Equipment, throughout the United States, during the Class Period. 

210. The affirmative acts of the Defendants alleged herein, including acts in 

furtherance of the conspiracy, were wrongfully concealed and carried out in a manner that 

precluded detection. 

211. By its very nature, Defendants’ anti-competitive conspiracy was inherently selfconcealing. Occupant Safety Restraint Systems and vehicles containing Occupant Safety 

Restraint Systems are not exempt from antitrust regulation, and thus, Plaintiffs reasonably 

considered the Occupant Safety Restraint Systems industry for Trucks and Equipment to be a 

competitive industry. Accordingly, a reasonable person under the circumstances would not have 

been alerted to investigate the legitimacy of Defendants’ prices for Occupant Safety Restraint 

Systems for Trucks and Equipment. 

212. As explained in the Informations filed against several of the Defendants, the 

conspirators concealed their activities from the authorities by using code names and arranging 

meetings at private residences and remote locations. Also, certain of the conspirators have plead 

guilty to destroying incriminating electronic and paper documents upon learning of government 

investigations into the vehicle parts antitrust conspiracy which further concealed the conspiracy. 

Case 2:15-cv-12050-MOB-MKM ECF No. 1 filed 06/05/15 PageID.58 Page 58 of 103
 59 

213. Certain conspirators made false statements denying liability following the 

February 2010 raids conducted by the JFTC, ED, and FBI. Following the FBI raid of its office, a 

spokesman for Tokai Rika stated “[w]e haven’t done anything wrong.” Lear’s chairman and 

CEO stated that “I am confident that our Company is not involved in any anti-competitive 

practices.” 

214. Plaintiffs and the members of the Classes could not have discovered the alleged 

contract, conspiracy and combination at an earlier date by the exercise of reasonable diligence 

because of the deceptive practices and techniques of secrecy employed by the Defendants and 

their co-conspirators to avoid detection of, and fraudulently conceal, their contract, combination 

and conspiracy. 

215. Because the alleged conspiracy was both self-concealing and affirmatively 

concealed by Defendants and their co-conspirators, including through fraudulent 

misrepresentations, Plaintiffs and members of the Classes had no knowledge of the alleged 

conspiracy, or of any facts or information that would have caused a reasonably diligent person to 

investigate whether a conspiracy existed to fix prices on parts for Trucks and Equipment until the 

JFTC and EC announced their investigations and enforcement activities included industrial 

machinery and truck parts. 

216. As a result of Defendants’ fraudulent concealment of their conspiracy, the running 

of any statute of limitations has been tolled with respect to any claims that Plaintiffs and the 

members of the Classes have alleged in this Complaint. 

Case 2:15-cv-12050-MOB-MKM ECF No. 1 filed 06/05/15 PageID.59 Page 59 of 103
 60 

FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF 

Violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act 

(on behalf of Plaintiffs and the Nationwide Class) 

217. Defendants and unnamed conspirators entered into and engaged in a contract, 

combination, or conspiracy in unreasonable restraint of trade in violation of Section 1 of the 

Sherman Act (15 U.S.C. § 1). 

218. The acts done by each of the Defendants as part of, and in furtherance of, their 

contract, combination, or conspiracy were authorized, ordered, or done by their officers, agents, 

employees, or representatives while actively engaged in the management of Defendants’ affairs. 

219. At least as early as January 2003, and continuing until at least the filing of this 

Complaint, the exact dates being unknown to Plaintiffs, Defendants and their co-conspirators 

entered into a continuing agreement, understanding, and conspiracy in restraint of trade to 

artificially fix, raise, stabilize, and control prices for Occupant Safety Restraint Systems, thereby 

creating anticompetitive effects. 

220. The anticompetitive acts were intentionally directed at the United States market 

for Occupant Safety Restraint Systems and had a substantial and foreseeable effect on interstate 

commerce by raising and fixing prices for Occupant Safety Restraint Systems throughout the 

United States. 

221. The conspiratorial acts and combinations have caused unreasonable restraints in 

the market for Occupant Safety Restraint Systems. 

222. As a result of Defendants’ unlawful conduct, Plaintiffs and other similarly 

situated indirect purchasers in the Nationwide Class who purchased Occupant Safety Restraint 

Systems have been harmed by being forced to pay inflated, supracompetitive prices for Occupant 

Case 2:15-cv-12050-MOB-MKM ECF No. 1 filed 06/05/15 PageID.60 Page 60 of 103
 61 

Safety Restraint Systems and Trucks and Equipment containing Occupant Safety Restraint 

Systems. 

223. In formulating and carrying out the alleged agreement, understanding, and 

conspiracy, Defendants and their co-conspirators did those things that they combined and 

conspired to do, including but not limited to the acts, practices, and course of conduct set forth 

herein. 

224. Defendants’ conspiracy had the following effects, among others: 

(a) Price competition in the market for Occupant Safety Restraint Systems has been 

restrained, suppressed, and/or eliminated in the United States; 

(b) Prices for Occupant Safety Restraint Systems sold by Defendants and their 

coconspirators have been fixed, raised, maintained, and stabilized at artificially high, 

noncompetitive levels throughout the United States; 

(c) Prices for Trucks and Equipment purchased by Plaintiffs and the members of the 

Nationwide Class containing Occupant Safety Restraint Systems manufactured by Defendants 

and their coconspirators were inflated; and 

(d) Plaintiffs and members of the Nationwide Class who purchased Occupant Safety 

Restraint Systems indirectly from Defendants have been deprived of the benefits of free and 

open competition. 

225. Plaintiffs and members of the Nationwide Class have been injured and will 

continue to be injured in their business and property by paying more for Occupant Safety 

Restraint Systems and Trucks and Equipment containing Occupant Safety Restraint Systems 

than they would have paid and will pay in the absence of the conspiracy. 

Case 2:15-cv-12050-MOB-MKM ECF No. 1 filed 06/05/15 PageID.61 Page 61 of 103
 62 

226. Plaintiffs and members of the Nationwide Class will continue to be subject to 

Defendants’ price-fixing, bid-rigging, and market allocations, which will deprive Plaintiffs and 

members of the Nationwide Class of the benefits of free competition, including competitivelypriced Occupant Safety Restraint Systems and Trucks and Equipment containing Occupant 

Safety Restraint Systems. 

227. Plaintiffs and members of the Nationwide Class will continue to lose funds due to 

overpayment for Occupant Safety Restraint Systems and Trucks and Equipment containing 

Occupant Safety Restraint Systems because they are required to purchase Trucks and Equipment 

and Occupant Safety Restraint Systems to continue to operate their businesses. 

228. Plaintiffs and members of the Nationwide Class continue to purchase Trucks and 

Equipment and Occupant Safety Restraint Systems, on a regular basis. 

229. Trucks and Equipment and Occupant Safety Restraint Systems continue to be sold 

at inflated and supracompetitive prices. 

230. The alleged contract, combination, or conspiracy is a per se violation of the 

federal antitrust laws. 

231. Plaintiffs and members of the Nationwide Class will be at the mercy of 

Defendants’ unlawful conduct until the Court orders an injunction. 

232. Plaintiffs and members of the Nationwide Class are entitled to an injunction 

against Defendants preventing and restraining the violations alleged herein. 

SECOND CLAIM FOR RELIEF 

Violation of State Antitrust Statutes 

(on behalf of Plaintiffs and the Damages Class) 

233. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference the allegations in the preceding paragraphs. 

Case 2:15-cv-12050-MOB-MKM ECF No. 1 filed 06/05/15 PageID.62 Page 62 of 103
 63 

234. From as early as January 2003 until at least the filing of this Complaint, 

Defendants and their co-conspirators engaged in a continuing contract, combination, or 

conspiracy with respect to the sale of Occupant Safety Restraint Systems in unreasonable 

restraint of trade and commerce and in violation of the various state antitrust statutes set forth 

below. 

235. The contract, combination, or conspiracy consisted of an agreement among the 

Defendants and their co-conspirators to fix, raise, inflate, stabilize and/or maintain artificially 

supracompetitive prices for Occupant Safety Restraint Systems, to rig bids for the sale of 

Occupant Safety Restraint Systems and to allocate customers for Occupant Safety Restraint 

Systems in the United States. 

236. In formulating and effectuating this conspiracy, Defendants and their coconspirators performed acts in furtherance of the combination and conspiracy, including: 

(a) participating in meetings and conversations among themselves in the United 

States and elsewhere during which they agreed to price Occupant Safety Restraint Systems at 

certain levels, and otherwise to fix, increase, inflate, maintain, or stabilize effective prices paid 

by Plaintiffs and members of the Damages Class with respect to Occupant Safety Restraint 

Systems sold in the United States; 

(b) allocating customers and markets for Occupant Safety Restraint Systems in the 

United States in furtherance of their agreements; and 

(c) participating in meetings and conversations among themselves in the United 

States and elsewhere to implement, adhere to, and police the unlawful agreements they reached. 

Case 2:15-cv-12050-MOB-MKM ECF No. 1 filed 06/05/15 PageID.63 Page 63 of 103
 64 

237. Defendants and their co-conspirators engaged in the actions described above for 

the purpose of carrying out their unlawful agreements to fix, maintain, decrease, or stabilize 

prices and to allocate customers with respect to Occupant Safety Restraint Systems. 

238. Defendants’ anticompetitive acts described above were knowing, willful, and 

constitute violations or flagrant violations of the following state antitrust statutes. 

239. Defendants have entered into an unlawful agreement in restraint of trade in 

violation of the Arizona Revised Statutes, §§ 44-1401, et seq.

(a) Defendants’ combinations or conspiracies had the following effects: (1) Occupant 

Safety Restraint Systems price competition was restrained, suppressed, and eliminated 

throughout Arizona; (2) Occupant Safety Restraint Systems prices were raised, fixed, 

maintained, and stabilized at artificially high levels throughout Arizona; (3) Plaintiffs and 

members of the Damages Class were deprived of free and open competition; and (4) Plaintiffs 

and members of the Damages Class paid supracompetitive, artificially inflated prices for 

Occupant Safety Restraint Systems and Trucks and Equipment containing Occupant Safety 

Restraint Systems. 

(b) During the Class Period, Defendants’ illegal conduct substantially affected 

Arizona commerce. 

(c) As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ unlawful conduct, Plaintiffs and 

members of the Damages Class have been injured in their business and property and are 

threatened with further injury. 

(d) By reason of the foregoing, Defendants entered into agreements in restraint of 

trade in violation of Ariz. Rev. Stat. §§ 44-1401, et seq. Accordingly, Plaintiffs and members of 

the Damages Class seek all forms of relief available under Ariz. Rev. Stat. §§ 44-1401, et seq.

Case 2:15-cv-12050-MOB-MKM ECF No. 1 filed 06/05/15 PageID.64 Page 64 of 103
 65 

240. Defendants have entered into an unlawful agreement in restraint of trade in 

violation of the California Business and Professions Code, §§ 16700, et seq.

(a) During the Class Period, Defendants and their co-conspirators entered into and 

engaged in a continuing unlawful trust in restraint of the trade and commerce described above in 

violation of Section 16720 of the California Business and Professions Code. Defendants, each of 

them, have acted in violation of Section 16720 to fix, raise, stabilize, and maintain prices of, and 

allocate markets for, Occupant Safety Restraint Systems at supracompetitive levels. 

(b) The aforesaid violations of Section 16720, California Business and Professions 

Code, consisted, without limitation, of a continuing unlawful trust and concert of action among 

the Defendants and their co-conspirators the substantial terms of which were to fix, raise, 

maintain, and stabilize the prices of, and to allocate markets for, Occupant Safety Restraint 

Systems. 

(c) For the purpose of forming and effectuating the unlawful trust, the Defendants 

and their co-conspirators have done those things which they combined and conspired to do, 

including but in no way limited to the acts, practices and course of conduct set forth above and 

the following: (1) Fixing, raising, stabilizing, and pegging the price of Occupant Safety Restraint 

Systems; and (2) Allocating among themselves the production of Occupant Safety Restraint 

Systems. 

(d) The combination and conspiracy alleged herein has had, inter alia, the following 

effects upon the commerce of California: (1) Price competition in the sale of Occupant Safety 

Restraint Systems has been restrained, suppressed, and/or eliminated in the State of California; 

(2) Prices for Occupant Safety Restraint Systems sold by Defendants and their co-conspirators 

have been fixed, raised, stabilized, and pegged at artificially high, non-competitive levels in the 

Case 2:15-cv-12050-MOB-MKM ECF No. 1 filed 06/05/15 PageID.65 Page 65 of 103
 66 

State of California and throughout the United States; and (3) Those who purchased Occupant 

Safety Restraint Systems or Trucks and Equipment containing Occupant Safety Restraint 

Systems manufactured by Defendants and their co-conspirators have been deprived of the benefit 

of free and open competition. 

(e) As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ unlawful conduct, Plaintiffs and 

members of the Damages Class have been injured in their business and property in that they paid 

more for Occupant Safety Restraint Systems than they otherwise would have paid in the absence 

of Defendants’ unlawful conduct. As a result of Defendants’ violation of Section 16720 of the 

California Business and Professions Code, Plaintiffs and members of the Damages Class seek 

treble damages and their cost of suit, including a reasonable attorney’s fee, pursuant to Section 

16750(a) of the California Business and Professions Code. 

241. Defendants have entered into an unlawful agreement in restraint of trade in 

violation of the District of Columbia Official Code §§ 28-4501, et seq.

(a) Defendants’ combinations or conspiracies had the following effects: (1) Occupant 

Safety Restraint Systems price competition was restrained, suppressed, and eliminated 

throughout the District of Columbia; (2) Occupant Safety Restraint Systems prices were raised, 

fixed, maintained, and stabilized at artificially high levels throughout the District of Columbia; 

(3) Plaintiffs and members of the Damages Class, including those who resided in the District of 

Columbia and/or purchased Occupant Safety Restraint Systems or Trucks and Equipment in the 

District of Columbia, were deprived of free and open competition, including in the District of 

Columbia; and (4) Plaintiffs and members of the Damages Class, including those who resided in 

the District of Columbia and/or purchased Occupant Safety Restraint Systems or Trucks and 

Equipment in the District of Columbia, paid supracompetitive, artificially inflated prices for 

Case 2:15-cv-12050-MOB-MKM ECF No. 1 filed 06/05/15 PageID.66 Page 66 of 103
 67 

Occupant Safety Restraint Systems and Trucks and Equipment containing Occupant Safety 

Restraint Systems, including in the District of Columbia. 

(b) During the Class Period, Defendants’ illegal conduct substantially affected 

District of Columbia commerce. 

(c) As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ unlawful conduct, Plaintiffs and 

members of the Damages Class have been injured in their business and property and are 

threatened with further injury. 

(d) By reason of the foregoing, Defendants have entered into agreements in restraint 

of trade in violation of District of Columbia Code Ann. §§ 28-4501, et seq. Accordingly, 

Plaintiffs and members of the Damages Class seek all forms of relief available under District of 

Columbia Code Ann. §§ 28-4501, et seq.

242. Defendants have entered into an unlawful agreement in restraint of trade in 

violation of the Hawaii Revised Statutes Annotated §§ 480-1, et seq.

(a) Defendants’ unlawful conduct had the following effects: (1) Occupant Safety 

Restraint Systems’ price competition was restrained, suppressed, and eliminated throughout 

Hawaii; (2) Occupant Safety Restraint Systems’ prices were raised, fixed, maintained, and 

stabilized at artificially high levels throughout Hawaii; (3) Plaintiff and members of the Damages 

Class were deprived of free and open competition; and (4) Plaintiff and members of the Damages 

Class paid supracompetitive, artificially inflated prices for Occupant Safety Restraint Systems 

and Trucks and Equipment containing Occupant Safety Restraint Systems. 

(b) During the Class Period, Defendants’ illegal conduct substantially affected 

Hawaii commerce. 

Case 2:15-cv-12050-MOB-MKM ECF No. 1 filed 06/05/15 PageID.67 Page 67 of 103
 68 

(c) As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ unlawful conduct, Plaintiff and 

members of the Damages Class have been injured in their business and property and are 

threatened with further injury. 

(d) By reason of the foregoing, Defendants have entered into agreements in restraint 

of trade in violation of Hawaii Revised Statutes Annotated §§ 480-4, et seq. Accordingly, 

Plaintiffs and members of the Damages Class seek all forms of relief available under Hawaii 

Revised Statutes Annotated §§ 480-4, et seq.

243. Defendants have entered into an unlawful agreement in restraint of trade in 

violation of the Iowa Code §§ 553.1, et seq.

(a) Defendants’ combinations or conspiracies had the following effects: (1) Occupant 

Safety Restraint Systems price competition was restrained, suppressed, and eliminated 

throughout Iowa; (2) Occupant Safety Restraint Systems prices were raised, fixed, maintained, 

and stabilized at artificially high levels throughout Iowa; (3) Plaintiffs and members of the 

Damages Class were deprived of free and open competition; and (4) Plaintiffs and members of 

the Damages Class paid supracompetitive, artificially inflated prices for Occupant Safety 

Restraint Systems and Trucks and Equipment containing Occupant Safety Restraint Systems. 

(b) During the Class Period, Defendants’ illegal conduct substantially affected Iowa 

commerce. 

(c) As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ unlawful conduct, Plaintiffs and 

members of the Damages Class have been injured in their business and property and are 

threatened with further injury. 

Case 2:15-cv-12050-MOB-MKM ECF No. 1 filed 06/05/15 PageID.68 Page 68 of 103
 69 

(d) By reason of the foregoing, Defendants have entered into agreements in restraint 

of trade in violation of Iowa Code §§ 553.1, et seq. Accordingly, Plaintiffs and members of the 

Damages Class seek all forms of relief available under Iowa Code §§ 553.1, et seq.

244. Defendants have entered into an unlawful agreement in restraint of trade in 

violation of the Kansas Statutes Annotated, §§ 50-101, et seq.

(a) Defendants’ combinations or conspiracies had the following effects: (1) Occupant 

Safety Restraint Systems price competition was restrained, suppressed, and eliminated 

throughout Kansas; (2) Occupant Safety Restraint Systems prices were raised, fixed, maintained, 

and stabilized at artificially high levels throughout Kansas; (3) Plaintiffs and members of the 

Damages Class were deprived of free and open competition; and (4) Plaintiffs and members of 

the Damages Class paid supracompetitive, artificially inflated prices for Occupant Safety 

Restraint Systems and Trucks and Equipment containing Occupant Safety Restraint Systems. 

(b) During the Class Period, Defendants’ illegal conduct substantially affected 

Kansas commerce. 

(c) As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ unlawful conduct, Plaintiffs and 

members of the Damages Class have been injured in their business and property and are 

threatened with further injury. 

(d) By reason of the foregoing, Defendants have entered into agreements in restraint 

of trade in violation of Kansas Stat. Ann. §§ 50-101, et seq. Accordingly, Plaintiffs and members 

of the Damages Class seek all forms of relief available under Kansas Stat. Ann. §§ 50-101, et 

seq. 

245. Defendants have entered into an unlawful agreement in restraint of trade in 

violation of the Maine Revised Statutes, Maine Rev. Stat. Ann. 10, §§ 1101, et seq.

Case 2:15-cv-12050-MOB-MKM ECF No. 1 filed 06/05/15 PageID.69 Page 69 of 103
 70 

(a) Defendants’ combinations or conspiracies had the following effects: (1) Occupant 

Safety Restraint Systems price competition was restrained, suppressed, and eliminated 

throughout Maine; (2) Occupant Safety Restraint Systems prices were raised, fixed, maintained, 

and stabilized at artificially high levels throughout Maine; (3) Plaintiffs and members of the 

Damages Class were deprived of free and open competition: and (4) Plaintiffs and members of 

the Damages Class paid supracompetitive, artificially inflated prices for Occupant Safety 

Restraint Systems and Trucks and Equipment containing Occupant Safety Restraint Systems. 

(b) During the Class Period, Defendants’ illegal conduct substantially affected Maine 

commerce. 

(c) As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ unlawful conduct, Plaintiffs and 

members of the Damages Class have been injured in their business and property and are 

threatened with further injury. 

(d) By reason of the foregoing, Defendants have entered into agreements in restraint 

of trade in violation of Maine Rev. Stat. Ann. 10, §§ 1101, et seq. Accordingly, Plaintiffs and 

members of the Damages Class seek all relief available under Maine Rev. Stat. Ann. 10. §§ 

1101, et seq.

246. Defendants have entered into an unlawful agreement in restraint of trade in 

violation of the Michigan Compiled Laws Annotated §§ 445.771, et seq.

(a) Defendants’ combinations or conspiracies had the following effects: (1) Occupant 

Safety Restraint Systems price competition was restrained, suppressed, and eliminated 

throughout Michigan; (2) Occupant Safety Restraint Systems prices were raised, fixed, 

maintained, and stabilized at artificially high levels throughout Michigan; (3) Plaintiffs and 

members of the Damages Class were deprived of free and open competition; and (4) Plaintiffs 

Case 2:15-cv-12050-MOB-MKM ECF No. 1 filed 06/05/15 PageID.70 Page 70 of 103
 71 

and members of the Damages Class paid supracompetitive, artificially inflated prices for 

Occupant Safety Restraint Systems and vehicles containing Occupant Safety Restraint Systems. 

(b) During the Class Period, Defendants’ illegal conduct substantially affected 

Michigan commerce. 

(c) As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ unlawful conduct, Plaintiffs and 

members of the Damages Class have been injured in their business and property and are 

threatened with further injury. 

(d) By reason of the foregoing, Defendants have entered into agreements in restraint 

of trade in violation of Michigan Comp. Laws Ann. §§ 445.771, et seq. Accordingly, Plaintiffs 

and members of the Damages Class seek all relief available under Michigan Comp. Laws Ann. 

§§ 445.771, et seq.

247. Defendants have entered into an unlawful agreement in unreasonable restraint of 

trade in violation of the Minnesota Statutes Annotated §§ 325D.49, et seq.

(a) Defendants’ combinations or conspiracies had the following effects: (1) Occupant 

Safety Restraint Systems price competition was restrained, suppressed, and eliminated 

throughout Minnesota; (2) Occupant Safety Restraint Systems prices were raised, fixed, 

maintained, and stabilized at artificially high levels throughout Minnesota; (3) Plaintiffs and 

members of the Damages Class were deprived of free and open competition; and (4) Plaintiffs 

and members of the Damages Class paid supracompetitive, artificially inflated prices for 

Occupant Safety Restraint Systems and Trucks and Equipment containing Occupant Safety 

Restraint Systems. 

(b) During the Class Period Defendants’ illegal conduct substantially affected 

Minnesota commerce. 

Case 2:15-cv-12050-MOB-MKM ECF No. 1 filed 06/05/15 PageID.71 Page 71 of 103
 72 

(c) As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ unlawful conduct, Plaintiffs and 

members of the Damages Class have been injured in their business and property and are 

threatened with further injury. 

(d) By reason of the foregoing, Defendants have entered into agreements in restraint 

of trade in violation of Minnesota Stat. §§ 325D.49, et seq. Accordingly, Plaintiffs and members 

of the Damages Class seek all relief available under Minnesota Stat. §§ 325D.49, et seq.

248. Defendants have entered into an unlawful agreement in restraint of trade in 

violation of the Mississippi Code Annotated §§ 75-21-1, et seq.

(a) Defendants’ combinations or conspiracies had the following effects: (1) Occupant 

Safety Restraint Systems price competition was restrained, suppressed, and eliminated 

throughout Mississippi; (2) Occupant Safety Restraint Systems prices were raised, fixed, 

maintained, and stabilized at artificially high levels throughout Mississippi; (3) Plaintiffs and 

members of the Damages Class, including those who resided in Mississippi and/or purchased 

Occupant Safety Restraint Systems or Trucks and Equipment in Mississippi were deprived of 

free and open competition, including in Mississippi: and (4) Plaintiffs and members of the 

Damages Class, including those who resided in Mississippi and/or purchased Occupant Safety 

Restraint Systems or Trucks and Equipment in Mississippi paid supracompetitive, artificially 

inflated prices for Occupant Safety Restraint Systems, including in Mississippi. 

(b) During the Class Period, Defendants’ illegal conduct substantially affected 

Mississippi commerce. 

(c) As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ unlawful conduct, Plaintiffs and 

members of the Damages Class have been injured in their business and property and are 

threatened with further injury. 

Case 2:15-cv-12050-MOB-MKM ECF No. 1 filed 06/05/15 PageID.72 Page 72 of 103
 73 

(d) By reason of the foregoing, Defendants have entered into agreements in restraint 

of trade in violation of Mississippi Code Ann. § 75-21-1, et seq. Accordingly, Plaintiffs and 

members of the Damages Class seek all relief available under Mississippi Code Ann. § 75-21-1, 

et seq.

249. Defendants have entered into an unlawful agreement in restraint of trade in 

violation of the Nebraska Revised Statutes §§ 59-801, et seq.

(a) Defendants’ combinations or conspiracies had the following effects: (1) Occupant 

Safety Restraint Systems price competition was restrained, suppressed, and eliminated 

throughout Nebraska; (2) Occupant Safety Restraint Systems prices were raised, fixed, 

maintained, and stabilized at artificially high levels throughout Nebraska; (3) Plaintiffs and 

members of the Damages Class were deprived of free and open competition; and (4) Plaintiffs 

and members of the Damages Class paid supracompetitive, artificially inflated prices for 

Occupant Safety Restraint Systems and Trucks and Equipment containing Occupant Safety 

Restraint Systems. 

(b) During the Class Period, Defendants’ illegal conduct substantially affected 

Nebraska commerce. 

(c) As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ unlawful conduct, Plaintiffs and 

members of the Damages Class have been injured in their business and property and are 

threatened with further injury. 

(d) By reason of the foregoing, Defendants have entered into agreements in restraint 

of trade in violation of Nebraska Revised Statutes §§ 59-801, et seq. Accordingly, Plaintiffs and 

members of the Damages Class seek all relief available under Nebraska Revised Statutes §§ 59-

801, et seq. 

Case 2:15-cv-12050-MOB-MKM ECF No. 1 filed 06/05/15 PageID.73 Page 73 of 103
 74 

250. Defendants have entered into an unlawful agreement in restraint of trade in 

violation of the Nevada Revised Statutes Annotated §§ 598A.010, et seq.

(a) Defendants’ combinations or conspiracies had the following effects: (1) Occupant 

Safety Restraint Systems price competition was restrained, suppressed, and eliminated 

throughout Nevada; (2) Occupant Safety Restraint Systems prices were raised, fixed, maintained, 

and stabilized at artificially high levels throughout Nevada; (3) Plaintiffs and members of the 

Damages Class, including those who resided in Nevada and/or purchased Occupant Safety 

Restraint Systems or Trucks and Equipment in Nevada, were deprived of free and open 

competition including in Nevada; and (4) Plaintiffs and members of the Damages Class, 

including those who resided in Nevada and/or purchased Occupant Safety Restraint Systems or 

Trucks and Equipment in Nevada, paid supracompetitive, artificially inflated prices for Occupant 

Safety Restraint Systems and vehicles containing Occupant Safety Restraint Systems, including 

in Nevada. 

(b) During the Class Period, Defendants’ illegal conduct substantially affected 

Nevada commerce. 

(c) As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ unlawful conduct, Plaintiffs and 

members of the Damages Class have been injured in their business and property and are 

threatened with further injury. 

(d) By reason of the foregoing, Defendants have entered into agreements in restraint 

of trade in violation of Nevada Rev. Stat. Ann. §§ 598A.060, et seq. Accordingly, Plaintiffs and 

members of the Damages Class seek all relief available under Nevada Rev. Stat. Ann. §§ 

598A.010, et seq.

Case 2:15-cv-12050-MOB-MKM ECF No. 1 filed 06/05/15 PageID.74 Page 74 of 103
 75 

251. Defendants have entered into an unlawful agreement in restraint of trade in 

violation of the New Hampshire Revised Statutes §§ 356:1, et seq.

(a) Defendants’ combinations or conspiracies had the following effects: (1) Occupant 

Safety Restraint Systems price competition was restrained, suppressed, and eliminated 

throughout New Hampshire; (2) Occupant Safety Restraint Systems prices were raised, fixed, 

maintained, and stabilized at artificially high levels throughout New Hampshire; (3) Plaintiffs 

and members of the Damages Class were deprived of free and open competition; and (4) 

Plaintiffs and members of the Damages Class paid supracompetitive, artificially inflated prices 

for Occupant Safety Restraint Systems and Trucks and Equipment containing Occupant Safety 

Restraint Systems. 

(b) During the Class Period Defendants’ illegal conduct substantially affected New 

Hampshire commerce. 

(c) As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ unlawful conduct, Plaintiffs and 

members of the Damages Class have been injured in their business and property and are 

threatened with further injury. 

(d) By reason of the foregoing, Defendants have entered into agreements in restraint 

of trade in violation of New Hampshire Revised Statutes §§ 356:1, et seq. Accordingly, Plaintiffs 

and members of the Damages Class seek all relief available under New Hampshire Revised 

Statutes §§ 356:1, et seq.

252. Defendants have entered into an unlawful agreement in restraint of trade in 

violation of the New Mexico Statutes Annotated §§ 57-1-1, et seq.

(a) Defendants’ combinations or conspiracies had the following effects: (1) Occupant 

Safety Restraint Systems price competition was restrained, suppressed, and eliminated 

Case 2:15-cv-12050-MOB-MKM ECF No. 1 filed 06/05/15 PageID.75 Page 75 of 103
 76 

throughout New Mexico; (2) Occupant Safety Restraint Systems prices were raised, fixed, 

maintained, and stabilized at artificially high levels throughout New Mexico; (3) Plaintiffs and 

members of the Damages Class were deprived of free and open competition; and (4) Plaintiffs 

and members of the Damages Class paid supracompetitive, artificially inflated prices for 

Occupant Safety Restraint Systems and Trucks and Equipment containing Occupant Safety 

Restraint Systems. 

(b) During the Class Period, Defendants’ illegal conduct substantially affected New 

Mexico commerce. 

(c) As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ unlawful conduct, Plaintiffs and 

members of the Damages Class have been injured in their business and property and are 

threatened with further injury. 

(d) By reason of the foregoing, Defendants have entered into agreements in restraint 

of trade in violation of New Mexico Stat. Ann. §§ 57-1-1, et seq. Accordingly, Plaintiffs and 

members of the Damages Class seek all relief available under New Mexico Stat. Ann.§§ 57-1-1, 

et seq.

253. Defendants have entered into an unlawful agreement in restraint of trade in 

violation of the New York General Business Laws §§ 340, et seq.

(a) Defendants’ combinations or conspiracies had the following effects: (1) Occupant 

Safety Restraint Systems price competition was restrained, suppressed, and eliminated 

throughout New York; (2) Occupant Safety Restraint Systems prices were raised, fixed, 

maintained, and stabilized at artificially high levels throughout New York; (3) Plaintiffs and 

members of the Damages Class, including those who resided in New York and/or purchased 

Occupant Safety Restraint Systems or Trucks and Equipment in New York, were deprived of 

Case 2:15-cv-12050-MOB-MKM ECF No. 1 filed 06/05/15 PageID.76 Page 76 of 103
 77 

free and open competition, including in New York; and (4) Plaintiffs and members of the 

Damages Class, including those who resided in New York, paid supracompetitive, artificially 

inflated prices for Occupant Safety Restraint Systems when they purchased, including in New 

York, Occupant Safety Restraint Systems or Trucks and Equipment containing Occupant Safety 

Restraint Systems, or purchased, including in New York, Occupant Safety Restraint Systems or 

Trucks and Equipment that were otherwise of lower quality, than would have been absent the 

conspirators’ illegal acts, or were unable to purchase Occupant Safety Restraint Systems or 

Trucks and Equipment that they would have otherwise have purchased absent the illegal conduct. 

(b) During the Class Period, Defendants’ illegal conduct substantially affected New 

York commerce. 

(c) As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ unlawful conduct, Plaintiffs and 

members of the Damages Class have been injured in their business and property and are 

threatened with further injury. 

(d) By reason of the foregoing, Defendants have entered into agreements in restraint 

of trade in violation of the New York Donnelly Act, §§ 340, et seq. The conduct set forth above 

is a per se violation of the Act. Accordingly, Plaintiffs and members of the Damages Class seek 

all relief available under New York Gen. Bus. Law §§ 340, et seq.

254. Defendants have entered into an unlawful agreement in restraint of trade in 

violation of the North Carolina General Statutes §§ 75-1, et seq.

(a) Defendants’ combinations or conspiracies had the following effects: (1) Occupant 

Safety Restraint Systems price competition was restrained, suppressed, and eliminated 

throughout North Carolina; (2) Occupant Safety Restraint Systems prices were raised, fixed, 

maintained, and stabilized at artificially high levels throughout North Carolina; (3) Plaintiffs and 

Case 2:15-cv-12050-MOB-MKM ECF No. 1 filed 06/05/15 PageID.77 Page 77 of 103
 78 

members of the Damages Class, including those who resided in North Carolina and/or purchased 

Occupant Safety Restraint Systems or Trucks and Equipment in North Carolina, were deprived 

of free and open competition, including in North Carolina; and (4) Plaintiffs and members of the 

Damages Class, including those who resided in North Carolina and/or purchased Occupant 

Safety Restraint Systems or Trucks and Equipment in North Carolina, paid supracompetitive, 

artificially inflated prices for Occupant Safety Restraint Systems and Trucks and Equipment 

including in North Carolina. 

(b) During the Class Period, Defendants’ illegal conduct substantially affected North 

Carolina commerce. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ unlawful conduct, 

Plaintiffs and members of the Damages Class have been injured in their business and property 

and are threatened with further injury. 

(c) By reason of the foregoing, Defendants have entered into agreements in restraint 

of trade in violation of North Carolina Gen. Stat. §§ 75-1, et seq. Accordingly, Plaintiffs and 

members of the Damages Class seek all relief available under North Carolina Gen. Stat. §§ 75-1, 

et seq.

255. Defendants have entered into an unlawful agreement in restraint of trade in 

violation of the North Dakota Century Code §§ 51-08.1-01, et seq.

(a) Defendants’ combinations or conspiracies had the following effects: (1) Occupant 

Safety Restraint Systems price competition was restrained, suppressed, and eliminated 

throughout North Dakota; (2) Occupant Safety Restraint Systems prices were raised, fixed, 

maintained, and stabilized at artificially high levels throughout North Dakota; (3) Plaintiffs and 

members of the Damages Class were deprived of free and open competition; and (4) Plaintiffs 

and members of the Damages Class paid supracompetitive, artificially inflated prices for 

Case 2:15-cv-12050-MOB-MKM ECF No. 1 filed 06/05/15 PageID.78 Page 78 of 103
 79 

Occupant Safety Restraint Systems and Trucks and Equipment containing Occupant Safety 

Restraint Systems. 

(b) During the Class Period, Defendants’ illegal conduct had a substantial effect on 

North Dakota commerce. 

(c) As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ unlawful conduct, Plaintiffs and 

members of the Damages Class have been injured in their business and property and are 

threatened with further injury. 

(d) By reason of the foregoing, Defendants have entered into agreements in restraint 

of trade in violation of North Dakota Cent. Code §§ 51-08.1-01, et seq. Accordingly, Plaintiffs 

and members of the Damages Class seek all relief available under North Dakota Cent. Code §§ 

51-08.1-01, et seq.

256. Defendants have entered into an unlawful agreement in restraint of trade in 

violation of the Oregon Revised Statutes §§ 646.705, et seq.

(a) Defendants’ combinations or conspiracies had the following effects: (1) Occupant 

Safety Restraint Systems price competition was restrained, suppressed, and eliminated 

throughout Oregon; (2) Occupant Safety Restraint Systems prices were raised, fixed, maintained, 

and stabilized at artificially high levels throughout Oregon; (3) Plaintiffs and members of the 

Damages Class were deprived of free and open competition; and (4) Plaintiffs and members of 

the Damages Class paid supracompetitive, artificially inflated prices for Occupant Safety 

Restraint Systems and Trucks and Equipment containing Occupant Safety Restraint Systems. 

(b) During the Class Period Defendants’ illegal conduct had a substantial effect on 

Oregon commerce. 

Case 2:15-cv-12050-MOB-MKM ECF No. 1 filed 06/05/15 PageID.79 Page 79 of 103
 80 

(c) As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ unlawful conduct, Plaintiffs and 

members of the Damages Class have been injured in their business and property and are 

threatened with further injury. 

(d) By reason of the foregoing, Defendants have entered into agreements in restraint 

of trade in violation of Oregon Revised Statutes §§ 646.705, et seq. Accordingly, Plaintiffs and 

members of the Damages Class seek all relief available under Oregon Revised Statutes §§ 

646.705, et seq.

257. Defendants have entered into an unlawful agreement in restraint of trade in 

violation of the South Dakota Codified Laws §§ 37-1-3.1., et seq.

(a) Defendants’ combinations or conspiracies had the following effects: (1) Occupant 

Safety Restraint Systems price competition was restrained, suppressed, and eliminated 

throughout South Dakota; (2) Occupant Safety Restraint Systems prices were raised, fixed, 

maintained, and stabilized at artificially high levels throughout South Dakota; (3) Plaintiffs and 

members of the Damages Class, including those who resided in South Dakota and/or purchased 

Occupant Safety Restraint Systems or Trucks and Equipment in South Dakota, were deprived of 

free and open competition including in South Dakota; and (4) Plaintiffs and members of the 

Damages Class, including those who resided in South Dakota and/or purchased Trucks and 

Equipment or Occupant Safety Restraint Systems in South Dakota, paid supracompetitive, 

artificially inflated prices for Occupant Safety Restraint Systems and Trucks and Equipment 

containing Occupant Safety Restraint Systems including in South Dakota. 

(b) During the Class Period, Defendants’ illegal conduct had a substantial effect on 

South Dakota commerce. 

Case 2:15-cv-12050-MOB-MKM ECF No. 1 filed 06/05/15 PageID.80 Page 80 of 103
 81 

(c) As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ unlawful conduct, Plaintiffs and 

members of the Damages Class have been injured in their business and property and are 

threatened with further injury. 

(d) By reason of the foregoing, Defendants have entered into agreements in restraint 

of trade in violation of South Dakota Codified Laws Ann. §§ 37-1, et seq. Accordingly, Plaintiffs 

and members of the Damages Class seek all relief available under South Dakota Codified Laws 

Ann. §§ 37-1, et seq.

258. Defendants have entered into an unlawful agreement in restraint of trade in 

violation of the Tennessee Code Annotated §§ 47-25-101, et seq. 

(a) Defendants’ combinations or conspiracies had the following effects: (1) Occupant 

Safety Restraint Systems price competition was restrained, suppressed, and eliminated 

throughout Tennessee; (2) Occupant Safety Restraint Systems prices were raised, fixed, 

maintained, and stabilized at artificially high levels throughout Tennessee; (3) Plaintiffs and 

members of the Damages Class were deprived of free and open competition; and (4) Plaintiffs 

and members of the Damages Class paid supracompetitive, artificially inflated prices for 

Occupant Safety Restraint Systems and Trucks and Equipment containing Occupant Safety 

Restraint Systems. 

(b) During the Class Period, Defendants’ illegal conduct had a substantial effect on 

Tennessee commerce. 

(c) As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ unlawful conduct, Plaintiffs and 

members of the Damages Class have been injured in their business and property and are 

threatened with further injury. 

Case 2:15-cv-12050-MOB-MKM ECF No. 1 filed 06/05/15 PageID.81 Page 81 of 103
 82 

(d) By reason of the foregoing, Defendants have entered into agreements in restraint 

of trade in violation of Tennessee Code Annotated §§ 47-25-101, et seq. Accordingly, Plaintiffs 

and members of the Damages Class seek all relief available under Tennessee Code Annotated §§ 

47-25-101, et seq. 

259. Defendants have entered into an unlawful agreement in restraint of trade in 

violation of the Utah Code Annotated §§ 76-10-911, et seq.

(a) Defendants’ combinations or conspiracies had the following effects: (1) Occupant 

Safety Restraint Systems price competition was restrained, suppressed, and eliminated 

throughout Utah; (2) Occupant Safety Restraint Systems prices were raised, fixed, maintained, 

and stabilized at artificially high levels throughout Utah; (3) Plaintiffs and members of the 

Damages Class were deprived of free and open competition; and (4) Plaintiffs and members of 

the Damages Class paid supracompetitive, artificially inflated prices for Occupant Safety 

Restraint Systems and Trucks and Equipment containing Occupant Safety Restraint Systems. 

(b) During the Class Period, Defendants’ illegal conduct had a substantial effect on 

Utah commerce. 

(c) As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ unlawful conduct, Plaintiffs and 

members of the Damages Class have been injured in their business and property and are 

threatened with further injury. 

(d) By reason of the foregoing, Defendants have entered into agreements in restraint 

of trade in violation of Utah Code Annotated §§ 76-10-3101, et seq. Accordingly, Plaintiffs and 

members of the Damages Class seek all relief available under Utah Code Annotated §§ 76-10-

3101, et seq.

Case 2:15-cv-12050-MOB-MKM ECF No. 1 filed 06/05/15 PageID.82 Page 82 of 103
 83 

260. Defendants have entered into an unlawful agreement in restraint of trade in 

violation of the 9 Vermont Stat. Ann. §§ 2451, et seq.

(a) Defendants’ combinations or conspiracies had the following effects: (1) Occupant 

Safety Restraint Systems price competition was restrained, suppressed, and eliminated 

throughout Vermont; (2) Occupant Safety Restraint Systems prices were raised, fixed, 

maintained, and stabilized at artificially high levels throughout Vermont; (3) Plaintiffs and 

members of the Damages Class were deprived of free and open competition; and (4) Plaintiffs 

and members of the Damages Class paid supracompetitive, artificially inflated prices for 

Occupant Safety Restraint Systems and Trucks and Equipment containing Occupant Safety 

Restraint Systems. 

(b) During the Class Period Defendants’ illegal conduct had a substantial effect on 

Vermont commerce. 

(c) As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ unlawful conduct, Plaintiffs and 

members of the Damages Class have been injured in their business and property and are 

threatened with further injury. 

(d) By reason of the foregoing, Defendants have entered into agreements in restraint 

of trade in violation of 9 Vermont Stat. Ann. §§ 2451, et seq. Plaintiffs are entitled to relief 

pursuant to 9 Vermont Stat. Ann. § 2465 and any other applicable authority. Accordingly, 

Plaintiffs and members of the Damages Class seek all relief available under 9 Vermont Stat. 

Ann. §§ 2451, et seq.

261. Defendants have entered into an unlawful agreement in restraint of trade in 

violation of the West Virginia Code §§ 47-18-1, et seq.

Case 2:15-cv-12050-MOB-MKM ECF No. 1 filed 06/05/15 PageID.83 Page 83 of 103
 84 

(a) Defendants’ combinations or conspiracies had the following effects: (1) Occupant 

Safety Restraint Systems price competition was restrained, suppressed, and eliminated 

throughout West Virginia; (2) Occupant Safety Restraint Systems prices were raised, fixed, 

maintained, and stabilized at artificially high levels throughout West Virginia; (3) Plaintiffs and 

members of the Damages Class, including those who resided in West Virginia and/or purchased 

Occupant Safety Restraint Systems or Trucks and Equipment in West Virginia, were deprived of 

free and open competition including in West Virginia; and (4) Plaintiffs and members of the 

Damages Class, including those who resided in West Virginia and/or purchased Trucks and 

Equipment or Occupant Safety Restraint Systems in West Virginia, paid supracompetitive, 

artificially inflated prices for Occupant Safety Restraint Systems and Trucks and Equipment 

containing Occupant Safety Restraint Systems including in West Virginia. 

(b) During the Class Period, Defendants’ illegal conduct had a substantial effect on 

West Virginia commerce. 

(c) As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ unlawful conduct, Plaintiffs and 

members of the Damages Class have been injured in their business and property and are 

threatened with further injury. 

(d) By reason of the foregoing, Defendants have entered into agreements in restraint 

of trade in violation of West Virginia §§ 47-18-1, et seq. Accordingly, Plaintiffs and members of 

the Damages Class seek all relief available under West Virginia §§ 47-18-1, et seq.

262. Defendants have entered into an unlawful agreement in restraint of trade in 

violation of the Wisconsin Statutes §§ 133.01, et seq.

(a) Defendants’ combinations or conspiracies had the following effects: (1) Occupant 

Safety Restraint Systems price competition was restrained, suppressed, and eliminated 

Case 2:15-cv-12050-MOB-MKM ECF No. 1 filed 06/05/15 PageID.84 Page 84 of 103
 85 

throughout Wisconsin; (2) Occupant Safety Restraint Systems prices were raised, fixed, 

maintained, and stabilized at artificially high levels throughout Wisconsin; (3) Plaintiffs and 

members of the Damages Class were deprived of free and open competition; and (4) Plaintiffs 

and members of the Damages Class paid supracompetitive, artificially inflated prices for 

Occupant Safety Restraint Systems and Trucks and Equipment containing Occupant Safety 

Restraint Systems. 

(b) During the Class Period Defendants’ illegal conduct had a substantial effect on 

Wisconsin commerce. 

(c) As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ unlawful conduct, Plaintiffs and 

members of the Damages Class have been injured in their business and property and are 

threatened with further injury. 

(d) By reason of the foregoing, Defendants have entered into agreements in restraint 

of trade in violation of Wisconsin Stat. §§ 133.01, et seq. Accordingly, Plaintiffs and members of 

the Damages Class seek all relief available under Wisconsin Stat. §§ 133.01, et seq.

263. Plaintiffs and members of the Damages Class in each of the above states have 

been injured in their business and property by reason of Defendants’ unlawful combination, 

contract, conspiracy, and agreement. Plaintiffs and members of the Damages Class have paid 

more for Occupant Safety Restraint Systems and Trucks and Equipment containing Occupant 

Safety Restraint Systems than they otherwise would have paid in the absence of Defendants’ 

unlawful conduct. This injury is of the type the antitrust laws of the above states were designed 

to prevent and flows from that which makes Defendants’ conduct unlawful. 

Case 2:15-cv-12050-MOB-MKM ECF No. 1 filed 06/05/15 PageID.85 Page 85 of 103
 86 

264. In addition, Defendants have profited significantly from the aforesaid conspiracy. 

Defendants’ profits derived from their anticompetitive conduct come at the expense and 

detriment of the Plaintiffs and the members of the Damages Class. 

265. Accordingly, Plaintiffs and the members of the Damages Class in each of the 

above jurisdictions seek damages (including statutory damages where applicable), to be trebled 

or otherwise increased as permitted by a particular jurisdiction’s antitrust law, and costs of suit, 

including reasonable attorneys’ fees, to the extent permitted by the above state laws. 

THIRD CLAIM FOR RELIEF 

Violation of State Consumer Protection Statutes 

on behalf of Plaintiffs and the Damages Class 

266. Plaintiffs incorporate and reallege, as though fully set forth herein, each and every 

allegation set forth in the preceding paragraphs of this Complaint. 

267. Defendants knowingly engaged in unlawful, unfair competition or unfair, 

unconscionable, deceptive, or fraudulent acts or practices in violation of the state consumer 

protection and unfair competition statutes listed below. 

268. Defendants have knowingly entered into an unlawful agreement in restraint of 

trade in violation of the Arkansas Code Annotated, § 4-88-101. 

(a) Defendants knowingly agreed to, and did in fact, act in restraint of trade or 

commerce by affecting, fixing, controlling, and/or maintaining at non-competitive and artificially 

inflated levels, the prices at which Occupant Safety Restraint Systems were sold, distributed, or 

obtained in Arkansas and took efforts to conceal their agreements from Plaintiffs and members 

of the Damages Class. 

Case 2:15-cv-12050-MOB-MKM ECF No. 1 filed 06/05/15 PageID.86 Page 86 of 103
 87 

(b) The aforementioned conduct on the part of the Defendants constituted 

“unconscionable” and “deceptive” acts or practices in violation of Arkansas Code Annotated, § 

4-88-107(a)(10). 

(c) Defendants’ unlawful conduct had the following effects: (1) Occupant Safety 

Restraint Systems price competition was restrained, suppressed, and eliminated throughout 

Arkansas; (2) Occupant Safety Restraint Systems prices were raised, fixed, maintained, and 

stabilized at artificially high levels throughout Arkansas; (3) Plaintiffs and the members of the 

Damages Class were deprived of free and open competition; and (4) Plaintiffs and the members 

of the Damages Class paid supracompetitive, artificially inflated prices for Occupant Safety 

Restraint Systems and Trucks and Equipment containing Occupant Safety Restraint Systems. 

(d) During the Class Period, Defendants’ illegal conduct substantially affected 

Arkansas commerce and consumers. 

(e) As a direct and proximate result of the unlawful conduct of the Defendants, 

Plaintiffs and the members of the Damages Class have been injured in their business and 

property and are threatened with further injury. 

(f) Defendants have engaged in unfair competition or unfair or deceptive acts or 

practices in violation of Arkansas Code Annotated, § 4-88-107(a)(10) and, accordingly, Plaintiffs 

and the members of the Damages Class seek all relief available under that statute. 

269. Defendants have engaged in unfair competition or unfair, unconscionable, 

deceptive or fraudulent acts or practices in violation of California Business and Professions Code 

§ 17200, et seq.

(a) During the Class Period, Defendants marketed, sold, or distributed Occupant 

Safety Restraint Systems in California, and committed and continue to commit acts of unfair 

Case 2:15-cv-12050-MOB-MKM ECF No. 1 filed 06/05/15 PageID.87 Page 87 of 103
 88 

competition, as defined by Sections 17200, et seq. of the California Business and Professions 

Code, by engaging in the acts and practices specified above. 

(b) During the Class Period, Defendants’ illegal conduct substantially affected 

California commerce and consumers. 

(c) This claim is instituted pursuant to Sections 17203 and 17204 of the California 

Business and Professions Code, to obtain restitution from these Defendants for acts, as alleged 

herein, that violated Section 17200 of the California Business and Professions Code, commonly 

known as the Unfair Competition Law. 

(d) The Defendants’ conduct as alleged herein violated Section 17200. The acts, 

omissions, misrepresentations, practices, and non-disclosures of Defendants, as alleged herein, 

constituted a common, continuous, and continuing course of conduct of unfair competition by 

means of unfair, unlawful, and/or fraudulent business acts or practices within the meaning of 

California Business and Professions Code, Section 17200, et seq., including, but not limited to, 

the following: (1) the violations of Section 1 of the Sherman Act, as set forth above; (2) the 

violations of Section 16720, et seq., of the California Business and Professions Code, set forth 

above; 

(e) Defendants’ acts, omissions, misrepresentations, practices, and nondisclosures, as 

described above, whether or not in violation of Section 16720, et seq., of the California Business 

and Professions Code, and whether or not concerted or independent acts, are otherwise unfair, 

unconscionable, unlawful or fraudulent; 

(f) Defendants’ acts or practices are unfair to purchasers of Occupant Safety 

Restraint Systems (or Trucks and Equipment containing them) in the State of California within 

the meaning of Section 17200, California Business and Professions Code; and 

Case 2:15-cv-12050-MOB-MKM ECF No. 1 filed 06/05/15 PageID.88 Page 88 of 103
 89 

(g) Defendants’ unlawful conduct had the following effects: (1) Occupant Safety 

Restraint Systems price competition was restrained, suppressed, and eliminated throughout 

California; (2) Occupant Safety Restraint Systems prices were raised, fixed, maintained, and 

stabilized at artificially high levels throughout California; (3) Plaintiffs and members of the 

Damages Class, including those who resided in California and/ or purchased Occupant Safety 

Restraint Systems or Trucks and Equipment in California, were deprived of free and open 

competition, including in California; and (4) Plaintiffs and members of the Damages Class, 

including those who resided in California and/or purchased Occupant Safety Restraint Systems 

or Trucks and Equipment in California, paid supracompetitive, artificially inflated prices for 

Occupant Safety Restraint Systems and Trucks and Equipment containing Occupant Safety 

Restraint Systems, including in California. 

(h) Defendants’ acts and practices are unlawful, fraudulent or deceptive within the 

meaning of Section 17200 of the California Business and Professions Code. 

(i) The illegal conduct alleged herein is continuing and there is no indication that 

Defendants will not continue such activity into the future. 

(j) The unlawful, fraudulent, deceptive, and unfair business practices of Defendants, 

and each of them, as described above, have caused and continue to cause Plaintiffs and the 

members of the Damages Class to pay supracompetitive and artificially-inflated prices for 

Occupant Safety Restraint Systems (or Trucks and Equipment containing them). Plaintiffs and 

the members of the Damages Class suffered injury in fact and lost money or property as a result 

of such unfair competition. 

(k) As alleged in this Complaint, Defendants and their co-conspirators have been 

unjustly enriched as a result of their wrongful conduct and by Defendants’ unfair competition. 

Case 2:15-cv-12050-MOB-MKM ECF No. 1 filed 06/05/15 PageID.89 Page 89 of 103
 90 

Plaintiffs and the members of the Damages Class are accordingly entitled to equitable relief 

including restitution and/or disgorgement of all revenues, earnings, profits, compensation, and 

benefits that may have been obtained by Defendants as a result of such business practices, 

pursuant to the California Business and Professions Code, Sections 17203 and 17204. 

270. Defendants have engaged in unfair competition or unlawful, unfair, 

unconscionable, or deceptive acts or practices in violation of the Florida Deceptive and Unfair 

Trade Practices Act, Fla. Stat. §§ 501.201, et seq.

(a) Defendants’ unlawful conduct had the following effects: (1) Occupant Safety 

Restraint Systems price competition was restrained, suppressed, and eliminated throughout 

Florida; (2) Occupant Safety Restraint Systems prices were raised, fixed, maintained, and 

stabilized at artificially high levels throughout Florida; (3) Plaintiffs and members of the 

Damages Class were deprived of free and open competition; (4) Plaintiffs and members of the 

Damages Class paid supracompetitive, artificially inflated prices for Occupant Safety Restraint 

Systems; and (5) Reasonable purchasers in Florida were deceived into believing that they were 

paying competitive prices for their Trucks and Equipment and Occupant Safety Restraint 

Systems. 

(b) During the Class Period, Defendants’ illegal conduct substantially affected 

Florida commerce and consumers. 

(c) As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ unlawful conduct, Plaintiffs and 

members of the Damages Class have been injured in their business and property and are 

threatened with further injury. 

Case 2:15-cv-12050-MOB-MKM ECF No. 1 filed 06/05/15 PageID.90 Page 90 of 103
 91 

(d) Defendants have engaged in unfair competition or unlawful, unfair or deceptive 

acts or practices in violation of Florida Stat. § 501.201, et seq., and, accordingly, Plaintiffs and 

members of the Damages Class seek all relief available under that statute. 

271. Defendants have engaged in unfair competition or unfair, unconscionable, or 

deceptive acts or practices in violation of the New Mexico Stat. § 57-12-1, et seq.

(a) Defendants agreed to, and did in fact, act in restraint of trade or commerce by 

affecting, fixing, controlling and/or maintaining at non-competitive and artificially inflated 

levels, the prices at which Occupant Safety Restraint Systems were sold, distributed, or obtained 

in New Mexico and took efforts to conceal their agreements from Plaintiffs and members of the 

Damages Class. 

(b) Plaintiffs were not aware of Defendants’ price-fixing conspiracy and were 

therefore unaware that they were being unfairly and illegally overcharged. There was a gross 

disparity of bargaining power between the parties with respect to the price charged by 

Defendants for Occupant Safety Restraint Systems. Defendants had the sole power to set that 

price and Plaintiffs had no power to negotiate a lower price. Moreover, Plaintiffs lacked any 

meaningful choice in purchasing Occupant Safety Restraint Systems because they were unaware 

of the unlawful overcharge and because they had to purchase Occupant Safety Restraint Systems 

in order to be able to operate their Trucks and Equipment. Defendants’ conduct with regard to 

sales of Occupant Safety Restraint Systems, including their illegal conspiracy to secretly fix the 

price of Occupant Safety Restraint Systems at supracompetitive levels and overcharge 

consumers, was substantively unconscionable because it was one-sided and unfairly benefited 

Defendants at the expense of Plaintiffs and the public. Defendants took grossly unfair advantage 

of Plaintiffs. 

Case 2:15-cv-12050-MOB-MKM ECF No. 1 filed 06/05/15 PageID.91 Page 91 of 103
 92 

(c) The aforementioned conduct on the part of the Defendants constituted 

“unconscionable trade practices,” in violation of N.M.S.A.§ 57-12-3, in that such conduct, inter 

alia, resulted in a gross disparity between the value received by Plaintiffs and the members of the 

Damages Class and the prices paid by them for Occupant Safety Restraint Systems as set forth in 

N.M.S.A. § 57-12-2E, due to the inflated prices paid by Plaintiffs and Class members for 

vehicles and Occupant Safety Restraint Systems. 

(d) Defendants’ unlawful conduct had the following effects: (1) Occupant Safety 

Restraint Systems price competition was restrained, suppressed, and eliminated throughout New 

Mexico; (2) Occupant Safety Restraint Systems prices were raised, fixed, maintained, and 

stabilized at artificially high levels throughout New Mexico; (3) Plaintiffs and the members of 

the Damages Class were deprived of free and open competition; and (4) Plaintiffs and the 

members of the Damages Class paid supracompetitive, artificially inflated prices for Occupant 

Safety Restraint Systems and Trucks and Equipment containing Occupant Safety Restraint 

Systems. 

(e) During the Class Period, Defendants’ illegal conduct substantially affected New 

Mexico commerce and consumers. 

(f) As a direct and proximate result of the unlawful conduct of the Defendants, 

Plaintiffs and the members of the Damages Class have been injured in their business and 

property and are threatened with further injury. 

(g) Defendants have engaged in unfair competition or unfair or deceptive acts or 

practices in violation of New Mexico Stat. § 57-12-1, et seq., and, accordingly, Plaintiffs and the 

members of the Damages Class seek all relief available under that statute. 

Case 2:15-cv-12050-MOB-MKM ECF No. 1 filed 06/05/15 PageID.92 Page 92 of 103
 93 

272. Defendants have engaged in unfair competition or unfair, unconscionable, or 

deceptive acts or practices in violation of N.Y. Gen. Bus. Law § 349, et seq.

(a) Defendants agree to, and did in fact, act in restraint of trade or commerce by 

affecting, fixing, controlling, and/or maintaining, at artificial and non-competitive levels, the 

prices at which Occupant Safety Restraint Systems were sold, distributed, or obtained in New 

York and took efforts to conceal their agreements from Plaintiffs and members of the Damages 

Class. 

(b) Defendants deceptively led purchasers, such as Plaintiffs and Class members, to 

believe that the Occupant Safety Restraint Systems they had purchased as replacements and 

inside Trucks and Equipment had been sold at legal competitive prices, when they had in fact 

been sold at collusively obtained inflated prices, that were passed on to them. 

(c) The conduct of the Defendants described herein constitutes consumer-oriented 

deceptive acts or practices within the meaning of N.Y. Gen. Bus. Law § 349, which resulted in 

injuries to purchasers and broad adverse impact on the public at large, and harmed the public 

interest of New York State in an honest marketplace in which economic activity is conducted in 

a competitive manner. 

(d) Because of Defendants’ unlawful trade practices in the State of New York, New 

York purchasers who indirectly purchased Occupant Safety Restraint Systems were misled to 

believe that they were paying a fair price for Occupant Safety Restraint Systems or the price 

increases for Occupant Safety Restraint Systems were for valid business reasons; and similarly 

situated purchasers were potentially affected by Defendants’ conspiracy. 

(e) Defendants’ unlawful conduct had the following effects: (1) Occupant Safety 

Restraint Systems price competition was restrained, suppressed, and eliminated throughout New 

Case 2:15-cv-12050-MOB-MKM ECF No. 1 filed 06/05/15 PageID.93 Page 93 of 103
 94 

York; (2) Occupant Safety Restraint Systems prices were raised, fixed, maintained, and 

stabilized at artificially high levels throughout New York; (3) Plaintiffs and members of the 

Damages Class, who resided in and/or made purchases of Trucks and Equipment or Occupant 

Safety Restraint Systems in New York, were deprived of free and open competition and were 

subject to Defendants’ deceptive practices in New York; and (4) Plaintiffs and members of the 

Damages Class, who resided in and/or made purchases of Trucks and Equipment and Occupant 

Safety Restraint Systems in New York, paid supracompetitive, artificially inflated prices for 

Occupant Safety Restraint Systems and Trucks and Equipment containing Occupant Safety 

Restraint Systems, and were subjected to Defendants’ deceptive practices. 

(f) Defendants knew that their unlawful trade practices with respect to pricing 

Occupant Safety Restraint Systems would have an impact on all purchasers in New York and not 

just the Defendants’ direct customers. 

(g) Defendants knew that their unlawful trade practices with respect to pricing 

Occupant Safety Restraint Systems would have a broad impact, causing class members who 

indirectly purchased Occupant Safety Restraint Systems to be injured by paying more for 

Occupant Safety Restraint Systems than they would have paid in the absence of Defendants’

unlawful trade acts and practices. 

(h) During the Class Period, Defendants marketed, sold, or distributed Occupant 

Safety Restraint Systems in New York and their illegal conduct substantially affected New York 

commerce and New York purchasers. 

(i) During the Class Period, each of the Defendants named herein, directly, or 

indirectly and through affiliates they dominated and controlled manufactured, sold, and/or 

distributed Occupant Safety Restraint Systems in New York. 

Case 2:15-cv-12050-MOB-MKM ECF No. 1 filed 06/05/15 PageID.94 Page 94 of 103
 95 

(j) Plaintiffs and members of the Damages Class seek all relief available pursuant to 

N.Y. Gen. Bus. Law § 349(h). 

273. Defendants have engaged in unfair competition or unfair, unconscionable, or 

deceptive acts or practices in violation of North Carolina Gen. Stat. § 75-1.1, et seq.

(a) Defendants agree to, and did in fact, act in restraint of trade or commerce by 

affecting, fixing, controlling, and/or maintaining, at artificial and non-competitive levels, the 

prices at which Occupant Safety Restraint Systems were sold, distributed, or obtained in North 

Carolina and took efforts to conceal their agreements from Plaintiffs and members of the 

Damages Class. 

(b) The conduct of the Defendants described herein constitutes consumer-oriented 

deceptive acts or practices within the meaning of North Carolina law, which resulted in injuries 

to purchasers of Occupant Safety Restraint Systems and Trucks and Equipment, and broad 

adverse impact on the public at large, and harmed the public interest of North Carolina 

purchasers in an honest marketplace in which economic activity is conducted in a competitive 

manner. 

(c) Defendants’ unlawful conduct had the following effects upon purchasers of 

Occupant Safety Restraint Systems in North Carolina: (1) Occupant Safety Restraint Systems 

price competition was restrained, suppressed, and eliminated throughout North Carolina; (2) 

Occupant Safety Restraint Systems prices were raised, fixed, maintained, and stabilized at 

artificially high levels throughout North Carolina; (3) Plaintiffs and members of the Damages 

Class, including those who resided in North Carolina and/or purchased Occupant Safety 

Restraint Systems or Trucks and Equipment in North Carolina, were deprived of free and open 

competition including in North Carolina; and (4) Plaintiffs and members of the Damages Class, 

Case 2:15-cv-12050-MOB-MKM ECF No. 1 filed 06/05/15 PageID.95 Page 95 of 103
 96 

including those who resided in North Carolina and/or purchased Occupant Safety Restraint 

Systems or Trucks and Equipment in North Carolina, paid supracompetitive, artificially inflated 

prices for Occupant Safety Restraint Systems and Trucks and Equipment containing Occupant 

Safety Restraint Systems including in North Carolina. 

(d) During the Class Period, Defendants’ illegal conduct substantially affected North 

Carolina commerce and purchasers of Occupant Safety Restraint Systems and Trucks and 

Equipment. Defendants’ price-fixing conspiracy could not have succeeded absent deceptive 

conduct by Defendants to cover up their illegal acts. Secrecy was integral to the formation, 

implementation and maintenance of Defendants’ price-fixing conspiracy. Defendants committed 

inherently deceptive and self-concealing actions, of which Plaintiffs could not possibly have 

been aware. Moreover, Defendants deceptively concealed their unlawful activities by 

conducting meetings and conversations in secret. 

(e) During the Class Period, each of the Defendants named herein, directly, or 

indirectly and through affiliates they dominated and controlled, manufactured, marketed, sold 

and/or distributed Occupant Safety Restraint Systems in North Carolina. 

(f) Plaintiffs and members of the Damages Class seek actual damages for their 

injuries caused by these violations in an amount to be determined at trial and are threatened with 

further injury. Defendants have engaged in unfair competition or unfair or deceptive acts or 

practices in violation of North Carolina Gen. Stat. § 75-1.1, et seq, and, accordingly, Plaintiffs 

and members of the Damages Class seek all relief available under that statute. 

274. Defendants have engaged in unfair competition or unfair, unconscionable, or 

deceptive acts or practices in violation of South Carolina Code Ann. §§ 39-5-10, et seq.

Case 2:15-cv-12050-MOB-MKM ECF No. 1 filed 06/05/15 PageID.96 Page 96 of 103
 97 

(a) Defendants’ combinations or conspiracies had the following effects: (1) Occupant 

Safety Restraint Systems price competition was restrained, suppressed, and eliminated 

throughout South Carolina; (2) Occupant Safety Restraint Systems prices were raised, fixed, 

maintained, and stabilized at artificially high levels throughout South Carolina; (3) Plaintiffs and 

members of the Damages Class were deprived of free and open competition; and (4) Plaintiffs 

and members of the Damages Class paid supracompetitive, artificially inflated prices for 

Occupant Safety Restraint Systems and vehicles containing Occupant Safety Restraint Systems. 

(b) During the Class Period, Defendants’ illegal conduct had a substantial effect on 

South Carolina commerce. 

(c) As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ unlawful conduct, Plaintiffs and 

members of the Damages Class have been injured in their business and property and are 

threatened with further injury. 

(d) Defendants have engaged in unfair competition or unfair or deceptive acts or 

practices in violation of S.C. Code Ann. §§ 39-5-10, et seq., and, accordingly, Plaintiffs and the 

members of the Damages Class seek all relief available under that statute. 

275. Defendants have engaged in unfair competition or unfair, unconscionable, or 

deceptive acts or practices in violation of 9 Vermont § 2451, et seq.

(a) Defendants agreed to, and did in fact, act in restraint of trade or commerce in a 

market that includes Vermont, by affecting, fixing, controlling, and/or maintaining, at artificial 

and non-competitive levels, the prices at which Occupant Safety Restraint Systems were sold, 

distributed, or obtained in Vermont. 

(b) Defendants deliberately failed to disclose material facts to Plaintiffs and members 

of the Damages Class concerning Defendants’ unlawful activities and artificially inflated prices 

Case 2:15-cv-12050-MOB-MKM ECF No. 1 filed 06/05/15 PageID.97 Page 97 of 103
 98 

for Occupant Safety Restraint Systems. Defendants owed a duty to disclose such facts, and 

Defendants breached that duty by their silence. Defendants misrepresented to all purchasers 

during the Class Period that Defendants’ Occupant Safety Restraint Systems prices were 

competitive and fair. 

(c) Defendants’ unlawful conduct had the following effects: (1) Occupant Safety 

Restraint Systems price competition was restrained, suppressed, and eliminated throughout 

Vermont; (2) Occupant Safety Restraint Systems prices were raised, fixed, maintained, and 

stabilized at artificially high levels throughout Vermont; (3) Plaintiffs and members of the 

Damages Class were deprived of free and open competition; and (4) Plaintiffs and members of 

the Damages Class paid supra-competitive, artificially inflated prices for Occupant Safety 

Restraint Systems and Trucks and Equipment containing Occupant Safety Restraint Systems. 

(d) As a direct and proximate result of the Defendants’ violations of law, Plaintiffs 

and members of the Damages Class suffered an ascertainable loss of money or property as a 

result of Defendants’ use or employment of unconscionable and deceptive commercial practices 

as set forth above. That loss was caused by Defendants’ willful and deceptive conduct, as 

described herein. 

(e) Defendants’ deception, including their affirmative misrepresentations and 

omissions concerning the price of Occupant Safety Restraint Systems, likely misled all 

purchasers acting reasonably under the circumstances to believe that they were purchasing 

Occupant Safety Restraint Systems at prices set by a free and fair market. Defendants’ 

misleading conduct and unconscionable activities constitute unfair competition or unfair or 

deceptive acts or practices in violation of 9 Vermont § 2451, et seq., and, accordingly, Plaintiffs 

and members of the Damages Class seek all relief available under that statute. 

Case 2:15-cv-12050-MOB-MKM ECF No. 1 filed 06/05/15 PageID.98 Page 98 of 103
 99 

FOURTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF 

Unjust Enrichment 

on behalf of Plaintiffs and the Damages Class 

276. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference the allegations in the preceding paragraphs. 

277. Plaintiffs bring this claim under the laws of all states listed in the Second and 

Third Claims, supra, except California. Plaintiffs also bring this claim under the laws of 

Missouri, Illinois, Massachusetts, South Carolina, and Tennessee on behalf of the Plaintiffs who 

have their primary places of business in those states and the class members in those states. 

278. As a result of their unlawful conduct described above, Defendants have and will 

continue to be unjustly enriched. Defendants have been unjustly enriched by the receipt of, at a 

minimum, unlawfully inflated prices and unlawful profits on sales of Occupant Safety Restraint 

Systems. 

279. Defendants have benefited from their unlawful acts and it would be inequitable 

for Defendants to be permitted to retain any of the ill-gotten gains resulting from the 

overpayments made by Plaintiffs or the members of the Damages Class for Occupant Safety 

Restraint Systems. 

280. Plaintiffs and the members of the Damages Class are entitled to the amount of 

Defendants’ ill-gotten gains resulting from their unlawful, unjust, and inequitable conduct. 

Plaintiffs and the members of the Damages Class are entitled to the establishment of a 

constructive trust consisting of all ill-gotten gains from which Plaintiffs and the members of the 

Damages Class may make claims on a pro rata basis. 

281. Pursuit of any remedies against the firms from whom Plaintiffs and the Class 

members purchased Trucks and Equipment containing Occupant Safety Restraint Systems and 

Case 2:15-cv-12050-MOB-MKM ECF No. 1 filed 06/05/15 PageID.99 Page 99 of 103
 100 

Occupant Safety Restraint Systems subject to Defendants’ conspiracy would have been futile, 

given that those firms did not take part in Defendants’ conspiracy. 

PRAYER FOR RELIEF 

Accordingly, Plaintiffs respectfully request that: 

A. The Court determine that this action may be maintained as a class action under 

Rule 23(a), (b)(2), and (b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and direct that reasonable 

notice of this action, as provided by Rule 23(c)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, be 

given to each and every member of the Classes; 

B. The unlawful conduct, contract, conspiracy, or combination alleged herein be 

adjudged and decreed: 

(a) An unreasonable restraint of trade or commerce in violation of Section 1 of the 

Sherman Act; 

(b) A per se violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act; 

(c) An unlawful combination, trust, agreement, understanding, and/or concert of 

action in violation of the state antitrust and unfair competition and consumer protection laws as 

set forth herein; and 

(d) Acts of unjust enrichment by Defendants as set forth herein. 

C. Plaintiffs and the members of the Damages Class recover damages, to the 

maximum extent allowed under such laws, and that a joint and several judgment in favor of 

Plaintiffs and the members of the Damages Class be entered against Defendants in an amount to 

be trebled to the extent such laws permit; 

D. Plaintiffs and the members of the Damages Class recover damages, to the 

maximum extent allowed by such laws, in the form of restitution and/or disgorgement of profits 

unlawfully gained from them; 

Case 2:15-cv-12050-MOB-MKM ECF No. 1 filed 06/05/15 PageID.100 Page 100 of 103
 101 

E. Defendants, their affiliates, successors, transferees, assignees and other officers, 

directors, partners, agents, and employees thereof, and all other persons acting or claiming to act 

on their behalf or in concert with them, be permanently enjoined and restrained from in any 

manner continuing, maintaining, or renewing the conduct, contract, conspiracy, or combination 

alleged herein, or from entering into any other contract, conspiracy, or combination having a 

similar purpose or effect, and from adopting or following any practice, plan, program, or device 

having a similar purpose or effect; 

F. Plaintiffs and the members of the Damages Class be awarded restitution, 

including disgorgement of profits Defendants obtained as a result of their acts of unfair 

competition and acts of unjust enrichment; 

G. Plaintiffs and the members of the Classes be awarded pre- and post- judgment 

interest as provided by law, and that such interest be awarded at the highest legal rate from and 

after the date of service of this Complaint; 

H. Plaintiffs and the members of the Classes recover their costs of suit, including 

reasonable attorneys’ fees, as provided by law; and 

I. Plaintiffs and members of the Classes have such other and further relief as the 

case may require and the Court may deem just and proper. 

JURY DEMAND 

Plaintiffs hereby demand trial by jury. 

Dated: June 5, 2015 

/s/ J. Manly Parks 

Wayne A. Mack 

J. Manly Parks 

Duane Morris LLP 

30 S. 17th Street 

Case 2:15-cv-12050-MOB-MKM ECF No. 1 filed 06/05/15 PageID.101 Page 101 of 103
 102 

Philadelphia, PA 19103 

Phone: (215) 979-1000 

Fax: (215) 979-1020 

wamack@duanemorris.com 

jmparks@duanemorris.com 

Counsel for Truck and Equipment Dealer 

Plaintiffs 

Case 2:15-cv-12050-MOB-MKM ECF No. 1 filed 06/05/15 PageID.102 Page 102 of 103
Case 2:15-cv-12050-MOB-MKM ECF No. 1 filed 06/05/15 PageID.103 Page 103 of 103