REDACTED 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN 

SOUTHERN DIVISION 

IFEOMA ADAMS, HALLEY ASCHER, 

GREGORY ASKEN, MELISSA BARRON, 

KIMBERLY BENNETT, DAVID BERNSTEIN, 

RON BLAU, TENISHA BURGOS, KENT 

BUSEK, JENNIFER CHASE, RITA CORNISH, 

NATHAN CROOM, LORI CURTIS, JESSICA 

DECASTRO, ALENA FARRELL, JANE 

FITZGERALD, CARROLL GIBBS, DORI 

GILELS, JASON GRALA, IAN GROVES, 

CURTIS GUNNERSON, PAUL GUSTAFSON, 

TOM HALVERSON, CURTIS HARR, ANDREW 

HEDLUND, GARY ARTHUR HERR, JOHN 

HOLLINGSWORTH, LEONARD JULIAN, 

CAROL ANN KASHISHIAN, ELIZABETH 

KAUFMAN, ROBERT KLINGLER, KELLY 

KLOSTERMAN, JAMES MAREAN, MICHELLE 

MCGINN, NILSA MERCADO, REBECCA LYNN 

MORROW, EDWARD MUSCARA, STACEY 

NICKELL, SOPHIE O’KEEFE-ZELMAN, 

ROGER OLSON, SUSAN OLSON, WILLIAM 

PICOTTE, WHITNEY PORTER, CINDY 

PRINCE, JANNE RICE, ROBERT RICE, JR., 

FRANCES GAMMELL-ROACH, DARREL 

SENIOR, MEETESH SHAH, DARCY 

SHERMAN, ERICA SHOAF, ARTHUR 

STUKEY, KATHLEEN TAWNEY, JANE 

TAYLOR, KEITH UEHARA, MICHAEL WICK, 

THOMAS WILSON, and PHILLIP YOUNG on 

Behalf of Themselves and All Other Similarly 

Situated, 

Plaintiffs, 

v. 

DENSO CORPORATION, 

DENSO INTERNATIONAL AMERICA, INC., 

DENSO AUTOMOTIVE DEUTSCHLAND 

GMBH, 

NGK SPARK PLUG CO. LTD., 

NGK SPARK PLUGS (U.S.A.), INC., 

ROBERT BOSCH GMBH, AND 

ROBERT BOSCH LLC, 

Defendants. 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

Master File No. 12-md-02311 

Case No. 

CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT FOR 

DAMAGES AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF 

JURY TRIAL DEMANDED 

[REDACTED] 

2:15-cv-11868-MOB-APP Doc # 1 Filed 05/22/15 Pg 1 of 120 Pg ID 1
REDACTED 

1 

Plaintiffs Ifeoma Adams, Halley Ascher, Gregory Asken, Melissa Barron, Kimberly 

Bennett, David Bernstein, Ron Blau, Tenisha Burgos, Kent Busek, Jennifer Chase, Rita Cornish, 

Nathan Croom, Lori Curtis, Jessica Decastro, Alena Farrell, Jane Fitzgerald, Carroll Gibbs, Dori 

Gilels, Jason Grala, Ian Groves, Curtis Gunnerson, Paul Gustafson, Tom Halverson, Curtis Harr, 

Andrew Hedlund, Gary Arthur Herr, John Hollingsworth, Leonard Julian, Carol Ann Kashishian, 

Elizabeth Kaufman, Robert Klingler, Kelly Klosterman, James Marean, Michelle McGinn, Nilsa 

Mercado, Rebecca Lynn Morrow, Edward Muscara, Stacey Nickell, Sophie O’Keefe-Zelman, 

Roger Olson, Susan Olson, William Picotte, Whitney Porter, Cindy Prince, Janne Rice, Robert 

Rice, Jr., Frances Gammell-Roach, Darrel Senior, Meetesh Shah, Darcy Sherman, Erica Shoaf, 

Arthur Stukey, Kathleen Tawney, Jane Taylor, Keith Uehara, Michael Wick, Thomas Wilson, 

and Phillip Young (“Plaintiffs”), on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated (the 

“Classes” as defined below), upon personal knowledge as to the facts pertaining to themselves 

and upon information and belief as to all other matters, and based on the investigation of counsel, 

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

laws and state antitrust, unfair competition, consumer protection, and unjust enrichment laws, 

and allege as follows: 

NATURE OF ACTION 

1. This lawsuit is brought as a proposed class action against DENSO Corporation, 

DENSO International America, Inc., DENSO Automotive Deutschland GmbH (collectively, 

“DENSO” or “DENSO Defendants”), NGK Spark Plug Co. Ltd., NGK Spark Plugs (U.S.A.), 

Inc. (together, “NGK” or “NGK Defendants”), Robert Bosch GmbH and Robert Bosch LLC 

(together, “Bosch” or “Bosch Defendants”) (collectively “Defendants”), and unnamed coconspirators, manufacturers and/or suppliers of Spark Plugs, Standard Oxygen Sensors, and Air 

Fuel Ratio Sensors (defined below) globally and in the United States, for engaging in a long2:15-cv-11868-MOB-APP Doc # 1 Filed 05/22/15 Pg 2 of 120 Pg ID 2
REDACTED 

2 

running conspiracy to unlawfully fix, artificially raise, maintain and/or stabilize prices, rig bids 

for, and allocate the market and customers in the United States for Spark Plugs, Standard 

Oxygen Sensors, and Air Fuel Ratio Sensors. According to the United States Department of 

Justice (“DOJ”), Defendants’ conspiracy successfully targeted the long-struggling United States 

automotive industry, raising prices for car manufacturers and consumers alike. 

2. “Spark Plugs” are located in the engine and deliver high electric voltage from 

the ignition system to the combustion chamber of an internal combustion engine. 

3. “Standard Oxygen Sensors” are located in the exhaust system and measure the 

amount of oxygen in the exhaust. 

4. “Air Fuel Ratio Sensors” are “wideband” oxygen sensors that enable more 

precise control of the air-to-fuel ratio injected into the engine. Air Fuel Ratio Sensors are 

therefore a type of Oxygen Sensors. 

5. Plaintiffs seek to represent all persons and entities who from at least as early as 

January 2000 through such time as the anticompetitive effects of the Defendants’ conduct ceased 

(“Class Period”) purchased or leased a new vehicle in the United States not for resale which 

included one or more Spark Plug(s), Standard Oxygen Sensor(s), or Air Fuel Ratio Sensor(s) as a 

component part, which were manufactured or sold by the Defendants, any current or former 

subsidiary of the Defendants, or any-co-conspirator of the Defendants. 

6. Defendants manufacture, market, and/or sell Spark Plugs, Standard Oxygen 

Sensors, and/or Air Fuel Ratio Sensors throughout and into the United States. Defendants, and 

their co-conspirators (as yet unknown), agreed, combined, and conspired to fix, raise, maintain 

and/or stabilize prices, rig bids and allocate the market and customers in the United States for 

Spark Plugs, Standard Oxygen Sensors, and Air Fuel Ratio Sensors. 

2:15-cv-11868-MOB-APP Doc # 1 Filed 05/22/15 Pg 3 of 120 Pg ID 3
REDACTED 

3 

7. The DOJ’s Antitrust Division is currently conducting a broad criminal 

investigation into illegal price-fixing and bid-rigging in the automotive parts industry. As part of 

its criminal investigation, the DOJ is seeking information about unlawful anticompetitive 

conduct in the market for a number of different but related automotive parts, and the Federal 

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

in the offices of a number of major competitors in the automotive parts industry. The automotive 

parts investigation is the largest criminal investigation the Antitrust Division has ever pursued, 

both in terms of its scope and its impact on American consumers and businesses. The ongoing 

cartel investigation of price-fixing and bid-rigging in the automotive parts industry has yielded 

nearly $2.5 billion in criminal fines. 

8. Defendant DENSO Corporation agreed to plead guilty to a two-count criminal 

Information and to pay a $78 million fine for participating in a combination and conspiracy 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, certain electronic control units (“ECUs”) and 

heater control panels (“HCPs”) sold to an automobile manufacturer in the United States and 

elsewhere from at least as early as January 2000 until at least February 2010. The combination 

and conspiracy engaged in by Defendant DENSO Corporation and its co-conspirators was an 

unreasonable restraint of interstate and foreign trade and commerce in violation of the Sherman 

Antitrust Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1. 

9. In addition to the fact that Defendant DENSO Corporation pleaded guilty and 

agreed on its own behalf and on behalf of its subsidiaries to cooperating in the government’s 

investigation, several of its high-ranking executives have pleaded guilty to criminal price-fixing 

in the automotive parts industry. 

2:15-cv-11868-MOB-APP Doc # 1 Filed 05/22/15 Pg 4 of 120 Pg ID 4
REDACTED 

4 

10. On March 26, 2012, the DOJ announced that Norihiro Imai, an executive of 

Defendant DENSO Corporation, agreed to serve one year and one day in a U.S. prison, pay a 

$20,000 criminal fine, and plead guilty to a one-count criminal Information charging him with 

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

to customers in the United States and elsewhere. 

11. On April 26, 2012, the DOJ announced that Makoto Hattori, an executive of 

Defendant DENSO Corporation, agreed to serve fourteen months in a U.S. prison, pay a $20,000 

criminal fine, and plead guilty to a one-count criminal Information charging him with engaging 

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

customer in the United States and elsewhere. 

12. On May 21, 2013, the DOJ announced that Yuji Suzuki, an executive of 

Defendant DENSO Corporation, agreed to serve sixteen months in a U.S. prison, pay a $20,000 

criminal fine, and plead guilty to a two-count criminal Information for his role in a conspiracy to 

rig bids for, and to fix, stabilize, and maintain the prices of ECUs and HCPs sold in the United 

States and elsewhere. Also on May 21, 2013, the DOJ announced that Hiroshi Watanabe, an 

executive of Defendant DENSO Corporation, agreed to serve fifteen months in a U.S. prison, 

pay a $20,000 criminal fine, and plead guilty to a one-count criminal Information for his role in a 

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

United States and elsewhere. 

13. On February 20, 2014, the DOJ announced that Kazuaki Fujitani, a former 

executive of Defendant DENSO Corporation, agreed to serve one year and one day in a U.S. 

prison and plead guilty to a one-count criminal Information charging him with obstruction of 

justice for deleting numerous e-mails and electronic documents upon learning the FBI was 

2:15-cv-11868-MOB-APP Doc # 1 Filed 05/22/15 Pg 5 of 120 Pg ID 5
REDACTED 

5 

executing a search warrant on Defendant DENSO International America, Inc. in connection with 

the DOJ’s investigation into a conspiracy to fix the prices of HCPs installed in automobiles sold 

in the United States and elsewhere. 

14. On June 30, 2014, the DOJ announced that Satoru Horisaki, a former executive of 

Defendant DENSO Corporation, agreed to serve one year and one day in a U.S. prison, pay a 

$20,000 criminal fine, and plead guilty to a one-count criminal Information charging him with 

participating in a conspiracy to agree upon bids and prices for, and allocate the supply of, 

automotive instrument panel clusters sold to Honda of America Manufacturing Co. Inc., in the 

United States and elsewhere. 

15. Defendant NGK Spark Plug Co., Ltd. agreed to plead guilty to a one-count 

criminal Information and to pay a $52.1 million fine for participating in a combination and 

conspiracy 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, Spark Plugs, Standard Oxygen 

Sensors, and Air Fuel Ratio Sensors sold to automobile manufacturers in the United States and 

elsewhere from at least as early as January 2000 until at least July 2011. The combination and 

conspiracy engaged in by Defendant NGK Spark Plug Co., Ltd. and its co-conspirators was an 

unreasonable restraint of interstate and foreign trade and commerce in violation of the Sherman 

Antitrust Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1. 

16. On September 8, 2014, Germany-based Defendant Robert Bosch GmbH 

announced that it is cooperating with Brazilian antitrust authorities with respect to allegations 

that it was operating a Spark Plugs cartel with NGK Spark Plug Co., Ltd. between 2000 and 

2013. Brazil’s antitrust regulator, Conselho Administrativo de Defesa Economica, began 

investigating Robert Bosch GmbH in July 2014 and entered into a leniency agreement with 

2:15-cv-11868-MOB-APP Doc # 1 Filed 05/22/15 Pg 6 of 120 Pg ID 6
REDACTED 

6 

Robert Bosch GmbH that same month. Robert Bosch GmbH’s announcement was consistent 

with the criminal Information charging NGK Spark Plug Co., Ltd. with participating in meetings, 

conversations, and communications in Germany and Japan with co-conspirators. 

17. On March 31, 2015, the DOJ announced that Defendant 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 and Oxygen Sensors sold to automobile and internal 

combustion engine manufacturers in the United States from at least as early as January 2000 and 

lasted until at least July 2011. Robert Bosch GmbH also agreed to plead guilty for its role in a 

conspiracy to fix prices and rig bids for starter motors sold to automobile and internal 

combustion engine manufacturers in the United States from at least as early as January 2009 

until at least June 2010. The combination and conspiracy engaged in by Defendant Robert Bosch 

GmbH and its co-conspirators was an unreasonable restraint of interstate and foreign trade and 

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

18. On May 21, 2015, the DOJ announced that Norio Teranishi, a former executive of 

Defendant NGK Spark Plug Co., Ltd., and Hisashi Nakanishi, an employee of Defendant NGK 

Spark Plug Europe, were indicted for their role in a conspiracy to fix the prices of spark plugs, 

standard oxygen sensors, and air fuel ratio sensors, sold to DaimlerChrysler AG, Ford Motor 

Company, Fuji Heavy Industries (Subaru), General Motors Company, Honda Motor Company 

Ltd., Nissan Motor Co. Ltd., Toyota Motor Corporation, and certain of their U.S. subsidiaries. 

19. As a direct result of the anticompetitive and unlawful conduct alleged herein, 

Plaintiffs and the Classes (as defined below) paid artificially inflated prices for Spark Plugs, 

Standard Oxygen Sensors, and Air Fuel Ratio Sensors during the Class Period and have thereby 

suffered antitrust injury to their business or property. 

2:15-cv-11868-MOB-APP Doc # 1 Filed 05/22/15 Pg 7 of 120 Pg ID 7
REDACTED 

7 

JURISDICTION AND VENUE 

20. 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, consumer protection and unjust enrichment laws, and seek to 

obtain restitution, recover damages and secure other relief against the Defendants for violations 

of those state laws. Plaintiffs and the Classes also seek attorneys’ fees, costs, and other expenses 

under federal and state law. 

21. 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 of the state law claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1332(d) and 1367, in that this is a 

class action in which the matter or controversy exceeds the sum of $5,000,000, exclusive of 

interest and costs, and in which some members of the proposed Classes are citizens of a state 

different from the Defendants. 

22. 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. 

23. This Court has in personam jurisdiction over the Defendants because each, either 

directly or through the ownership and/or control of their subsidiaries, inter alia: (a) transacted 

business in the United States, including in this District; (b) directly or indirectly sold or marketed 

2:15-cv-11868-MOB-APP Doc # 1 Filed 05/22/15 Pg 8 of 120 Pg ID 8
REDACTED 

8 

substantial quantities of Spark Plugs, Standard Oxygen Sensors, and Air Fuel Ratio Sensors 

throughout the United States, including in this District; (c) had substantial aggregate contacts 

with the United States, including in this District; or (d) were 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, including in this District. Defendants also 

conduct business throughout the United States, including in this District, and have purposefully 

availed themselves of the laws of the United States. 

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

caused direct, substantial and reasonably foreseeable and intended anticompetitive effects upon 

interstate commerce within the United States. 

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

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

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

26. Spark Plugs, Standard Oxygen Sensors, and Air Fuel Ratio Sensors manufactured 

abroad by the Defendants and sold for use in vehicles in the United States are goods brought into 

the United States for sale, and therefore constitute import commerce. To the extent any Spark 

Plugs, Standard Oxygen Sensors, and Air Fuel Ratio Sensor are purchased in the United States, 

and such Spark Plugs, Standard Oxygen Sensors, and Air Fuel Ratio Sensors do not constitute 

import commerce, Defendants’ 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 in the United States. 

2:15-cv-11868-MOB-APP Doc # 1 Filed 05/22/15 Pg 9 of 120 Pg ID 9
REDACTED 

9 

27. By reason of the unlawful activities hereinafter alleged, Defendants’ unlawful 

activities 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, raise, maintain and/or stabilize prices, rig bids and allocate 

the market and customers in the United States for Spark Plugs, Standard Oxygen Sensors, and 

Air Fuel Ratio Sensors, which conspiracy unreasonably restrained trade and adversely affected 

the market for Spark Plugs, Standard Oxygen Sensors, and Air Fuel Ratio Sensors. 

28. Defendants’ conspiracy and wrongdoing described herein adversely affected 

persons in the United States who purchased or leased a new vehicle in the United States not for 

resale which included one or more Spark Plug, Standard Oxygen Sensor, and Air Fuel Ratio 

Sensors. 

PARTIES 

Plaintiffs 

29. Plaintiff Ifeoma Adams is a California resident who purchased at least one Spark 

Plug, Standard Oxygen Sensor, or Air Fuel Ratio Sensor indirectly from at least one Defendant. 

30. Plaintiff Halley Ascher is a District of Columbia resident who purchased at least 

one Spark Plug, Standard Oxygen Sensor, or Air Fuel Ratio Sensor indirectly from at least one 

Defendant. 

31. Plaintiff Gregory Asken is a Nevada resident who purchased at least Spark Plug, 

Standard Oxygen Sensor, or Air Fuel Ratio Sensor indirectly from at least one Defendant. 

32. Plaintiff Melissa Barron is a California resident who purchased at least one Spark 

Plug, Standard Oxygen Sensor, or Air Fuel Ratio Sensor indirectly from at least one Defendant. 

2:15-cv-11868-MOB-APP Doc # 1 Filed 05/22/15 Pg 10 of 120 Pg ID 10
REDACTED 

10 

33. Plaintiff Kimberly Bennett is an Arkansas resident who purchased at least one 

Spark Plug, Standard Oxygen Sensor, or Air Fuel Ratio Sensor indirectly from at least one 

Defendant. 

34. Plaintiff David Bernstein is a Minnesota resident who purchased at least one 

Spark Plug, Standard Oxygen Sensor, or Air Fuel Ratio Sensor indirectly from at least one 

Defendant. 

35. Plaintiff Ron Blau is a Massachusetts resident who purchased at least one Spark 

Plug, Standard Oxygen Sensor, or Air Fuel Ratio Sensor indirectly from at least one Defendant. 

36. Plaintiff Tenisha Burgos is a New York resident who purchased at least one Spark 

Plug, Standard Oxygen Sensor, or Air Fuel Ratio Sensor indirectly from at least one Defendant. 

37. Plaintiff Kent Busek is a North Dakota resident who purchased at least one Spark 

Plug, Standard Oxygen Sensor, or Air Fuel Ratio Sensor indirectly from at least one Defendant. 

38. Plaintiff Jennifer Chase is an Iowa resident who purchased at least one Spark 

Plug, Standard Oxygen Sensor, or Air Fuel Ratio Sensor indirectly from at least one Defendant. 

39. Plaintiff Rita Cornish is a Utah resident who purchased at least one Spark Plug, 

Standard Oxygen Sensor, or Air Fuel Ratio Sensor indirectly from at least one Defendant. 

40. Plaintiff Nathan Croom is a Nebraska resident who purchased at least one Spark 

Plug, Standard Oxygen Sensor, or Air Fuel Ratio Sensor indirectly from at least one Defendant. 

41. Plaintiff Lori Curtis is a Missouri resident who purchased at least one Spark Plug, 

Standard Oxygen Sensor, or Air Fuel Ratio Sensor indirectly from at least one Defendant. 

42. Plaintiff Jessica DeCastro is a Missouri resident who purchased at least one Spark 

Plug, Standard Oxygen Sensor, or Air Fuel Ratio Sensor indirectly from at least one Defendant. 

2:15-cv-11868-MOB-APP Doc # 1 Filed 05/22/15 Pg 11 of 120 Pg ID 11
REDACTED 

11 

43. Plaintiff Alena Farrell is a Vermont resident who purchased at least one Spark 

Plug, Standard Oxygen Sensor, or Air Fuel Ratio Sensor indirectly from at least one Defendant. 

44. Plaintiff Jane Fitzgerald is a Vermont resident who purchased at least one Spark 

Plug, Standard Oxygen Sensor, or Air Fuel Ratio Sensor indirectly from at least one Defendant. 

45. Plaintiff Carroll Gibbs is a District of Columbia resident who purchased at least 

one Spark Plug, Standard Oxygen Sensor, or Air Fuel Ratio Sensor indirectly from at least one 

Defendant. 

46. Plaintiff Dori Gilels is a Montana resident who purchased at least one Spark Plug, 

Standard Oxygen Sensor, or Air Fuel Ratio Sensor indirectly from at least one Defendant. 

47. Plaintiff Jason Grala is a New York resident who purchased at least one Spark 

Plug, Standard Oxygen Sensor, or Air Fuel Ratio Sensor indirectly from at least one Defendant. 

48. Plaintiff Ian Groves is a New Mexico resident who purchased at least one Spark 

Plug, Standard Oxygen Sensor, or Air Fuel Ratio Sensor indirectly from at least one Defendant. 

49. Plaintiff Curtis Gunnerson is a Minnesota resident who purchased at least one 

Spark Plug, Standard Oxygen Sensor, or Air Fuel Ratio Sensor indirectly from at least one 

Defendant. 

50. Plaintiff Paul Gustafson is an Oregon resident who purchased at least one Spark 

Plug, Standard Oxygen Sensor, or Air Fuel Ratio Sensor indirectly from at least one Defendant. 

51. Plaintiff Tom Halverson is an Arizona resident who purchased at least one Spark 

Plug, Standard Oxygen Sensor, or Air Fuel Ratio Sensor indirectly from at least one Defendant. 

52. Plaintiff Curtis Harr is a North Dakota resident who purchased at least one Spark 

Plug, Standard Oxygen Sensor, or Air Fuel Ratio Sensor indirectly from at least one Defendant. 

2:15-cv-11868-MOB-APP Doc # 1 Filed 05/22/15 Pg 12 of 120 Pg ID 12
REDACTED 

12 

53. Plaintiff Andrew Hedlund is a South Carolina resident who purchased at least one 

Spark Plug, Standard Oxygen Sensor, or Air Fuel Ratio Sensor indirectly from at least one 

Defendant. 

54. Plaintiff Gary Arthur Herr is a Florida resident who purchased at least one Spark 

Plug, Standard Oxygen Sensor, or Air Fuel Ratio Sensor indirectly from at least one Defendant. 

55. Plaintiff John Hollingsworth is a California resident who purchased at least one 

Spark Plug, Standard Oxygen Sensor, or Air Fuel Ratio Sensor indirectly from at least one 

Defendant. 

56. Plaintiff Leonard Julian is a Nevada resident who purchased at least one Spark 

Plug, Standard Oxygen Sensor, or Air Fuel Ratio Sensor indirectly from at least one Defendant. 

57. Plaintiff Carol Ann Kashishian is a Wisconsin resident who purchased at least one 

Spark Plug, Standard Oxygen Sensor, or Air Fuel Ratio Sensor indirectly from at least one 

Defendant. 

58. Plaintiff Elizabeth Kaufman is a Florida resident who purchased at least one 

Spark Plug, Standard Oxygen Sensor, or Air Fuel Ratio Sensor indirectly from at least one 

Defendant. 

59. Plaintiff Robert Klingler is a Missouri resident who purchased at least one Spark 

Plug, Standard Oxygen Sensor, or Air Fuel Ratio Sensor indirectly from at least one Defendant. 

60. Plaintiff Kelly Klosterman is a North Dakota resident who purchased at least one 

Spark Plug, Standard Oxygen Sensor, or Air Fuel Ratio Sensor indirectly from at least one 

Defendant. 

61. Plaintiff James Marean is a Maine resident who purchased at least one Spark 

Plug, Standard Oxygen Sensor, or Air Fuel Ratio Sensor indirectly from at least one Defendant. 

2:15-cv-11868-MOB-APP Doc # 1 Filed 05/22/15 Pg 13 of 120 Pg ID 13
REDACTED 

13 

62. Plaintiff Michelle McGinn is a Nevada resident who purchased at least one Spark 

Plug, Standard Oxygen Sensor, or Air Fuel Ratio Sensor indirectly from at least one Defendant. 

63. Plaintiff Nilsa Mercado is a Michigan resident who purchased at least one Spark 

Plug, Standard Oxygen Sensor, or Air Fuel Ratio Sensor indirectly from at least one Defendant. 

64. Plaintiff Rebecca Lynn Morrow is an Arizona resident who purchased at least one 

Spark Plug, Standard Oxygen Sensor, or Air Fuel Ratio Sensor indirectly from at least one 

Defendant. 

65. Plaintiff Edward Muscara is a New Hampshire resident who purchased at least 

one Spark Plug, Standard Oxygen Sensor, or Air Fuel Ratio Sensor indirectly from at least one 

Defendant. 

66. Plaintiff Stacey Nickell is a West Virginia resident who purchased at least one 

Spark Plug, Standard Oxygen Sensor, or Air Fuel Ratio Sensor indirectly from at least one 

Defendant. 

67. Plaintiff Sophie O’Keefe-Zelman is an Arizona resident who purchased at least 

one Spark Plug, Standard Oxygen Sensor, or Air Fuel Ratio Sensor indirectly from at least one 

Defendant. 

68. Plaintiff Roger Olson is a Michigan resident who purchased at least one Spark 

Plug, Standard Oxygen Sensor, or Air Fuel Ratio Sensor indirectly from at least one Defendant. 

69. Plaintiff Susan Olson is a Michigan resident who purchased at least one Spark 

Plug, Standard Oxygen Sensor, or Air Fuel Ratio Sensor indirectly from at least one Defendant. 

70. Plaintiff William Picotte is a Washington resident who purchased at least one 

Spark Plug, Standard Oxygen Sensor, or Air Fuel Ratio Sensor indirectly from at least one 

Defendant while a resident of South Dakota. 

2:15-cv-11868-MOB-APP Doc # 1 Filed 05/22/15 Pg 14 of 120 Pg ID 14
REDACTED 

14 

71. Plaintiff Whitney Porter is a District of Columbia resident who purchased at least 

one Spark Plug, Standard Oxygen Sensor, or Air Fuel Ratio Sensor indirectly from at least one 

Defendant. 

72. Plaintiff Cindy Prince is a Hawaii resident who purchased at least one Spark Plug, 

Standard Oxygen Sensor, or Air Fuel Ratio Sensor indirectly from at least one Defendant while a 

resident of Oregon. 

73. Plaintiff Janne Rice is a West Virginia resident who purchased at least one Spark 

Plug, Standard Oxygen Sensor, or Air Fuel Ratio Sensor indirectly from at least one Defendant. 

74. Plaintiff Robert Rice, Jr. is a West Virginia resident who purchased at least one 

Spark Plug, Standard Oxygen Sensor, or Air Fuel Ratio Sensor indirectly from at least one 

Defendant. 

75. Plaintiff Frances Gammell-Roach is a Rhode Island resident who purchased at 

least one Spark Plug, Standard Oxygen Sensor, or Air Fuel Ratio Sensor indirectly from at least 

one Defendant. 

76. Plaintiff Darrel Senior is a Kansas resident who purchased at least one Spark 

Plug, Standard Oxygen Sensor, or Air Fuel Ratio Sensor indirectly from at least one Defendant. 

77. Plaintiff Meetesh Shah is a California resident who purchased at least one Spark 

Plug, Standard Oxygen Sensor, or Air Fuel Ratio Sensor indirectly from at least one Defendant. 

78. Plaintiff Darcy Sherman is a Minnesota resident who purchased at least one Spark 

Plug, Standard Oxygen Sensor, or Air Fuel Ratio Sensor indirectly from at least one Defendant. 

79. Plaintiff Erica Shoaf is an Arizona resident who purchased at least one Spark 

Plug, Standard Oxygen Sensor, or Air Fuel Ratio Sensor indirectly from at least one Defendant. 

2:15-cv-11868-MOB-APP Doc # 1 Filed 05/22/15 Pg 15 of 120 Pg ID 15
REDACTED 

15 

80. Plaintiff Arthur Stukey is a Vermont resident who purchased at least one Spark 

Plug, Standard Oxygen Sensor, or Air Fuel Ratio Sensor indirectly from at least one Defendant. 

81. Plaintiff Kathleen Tawney is a North Carolina resident who purchased at least one 

Spark Plug, Standard Oxygen Sensor, or Air Fuel Ratio Sensor indirectly from at least one 

Defendant. 

82. Plaintiff Jane Taylor is a Hawaii resident who purchased at least one Spark Plug, 

Standard Oxygen Sensor, or Air Fuel Ratio Sensor indirectly from at least one Defendant. 

83. Plaintiff Keith Uehara is a Hawaii resident who purchased at least one Spark Plug, 

Standard Oxygen Sensor, or Air Fuel Ratio Sensor indirectly from at least one Defendant. 

84. Plaintiff Michael Wick is a New Mexico resident who purchased at least one 

Spark Plug, Standard Oxygen Sensor, or Air Fuel Ratio Sensor indirectly from at least one 

Defendant. 

85. Plaintiff Thomas Wilson is a Mississippi resident who purchased at least one 

Spark Plug, Standard Oxygen Sensor, or Air Fuel Ratio Sensor indirectly from at least one 

Defendant. 

86. Plaintiff Phillip Young is a Tennessee resident who purchased at least one Spark 

Plug, Standard Oxygen Sensor, or Air Fuel Ratio Sensor indirectly from at least one Defendant. 

Defendants 

The NGK Defendants

87. Defendant NGK Spark Plug Co., Ltd. is a Japanese corporation. NGK Spark 

Plug Co., Ltd. – directly and/or through its subsidiaries, which it wholly owned and/or 

controlled – manufactured, marketed and/or sold Spark Plugs, Standard Oxygen Sensors, and 

2:15-cv-11868-MOB-APP Doc # 1 Filed 05/22/15 Pg 16 of 120 Pg ID 16
REDACTED 

16 

Air Fuel Ratio Sensors that were purchased throughout the United States, including in this 

District, during the Class Period. 

88. Defendant NGK Spark Plugs (U.S.A.), Inc. is a California corporation with its 

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

controlled by its parent, NGK Spark Plug Co., Ltd. Defendant NGK Spark Plugs (U.S.A.), Inc. 

manufactured, marketed and/or sold Spark Plugs, Standard Oxygen Sensors, and Air Fuel 

Ratio Sensors that were purchased throughout the United States, including in this district, 

during the Class Period. 

89. NGK Spark Plug Co., Ltd. and NGK Spark Plugs (U.S.A.), Inc. are herein 

referred collectively as the “NGK Defendants” or “NGK.” 

The DENSO Defendants 

90. Defendant DENSO Corporation is a Japanese company with its headquarters in 

Kariya, Japan. DENSO Corporation – directly and/or through its subsidiaries, which it wholly 

owned and/or controlled – manufactured, marketed and/or sold Spark Plugs, Standard Oxygen 

Sensors, and Air Fuel Ratio Sensors that were purchased throughout the United States, 

including in this District, during the Class Period. 

91. Defendant DENSO International America, Inc. is a Delaware company with its 

principal place of business in Southfield, Michigan. It is a subsidiary of and wholly owned 

and/or controlled by its parent, DENSO Corporation. A number of DENSO International 

America’s executives also work or have worked for DENSO Corporation. Kazumasa Kimura, 

the Chief Operating Officer of DENSO America, serves as one of DENSO Corporation’s 

executive directors. Kimura is also the former director of the Global Sales and Business 

Development Division of DENSO Corporation. Similarly, Hikaru “Howard” Sugi, the 

2:15-cv-11868-MOB-APP Doc # 1 Filed 05/22/15 Pg 17 of 120 Pg ID 17
REDACTED 

17 

President and Chief Executive Officer of DENSO America, is the senior executive director of 

DENSO Corporation. Defendant DENSO International America, Inc. manufactured, marketed 

and/or sold Spark Plugs, Standard Oxygen Sensors, and Air Fuel Ratio Sensors that were 

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

92. Defendant DENSO Automotive Deutschland GmbH is a German company with 

its headquarters in Eching, Germany. It is a subsidiary of and wholly owned and/or controlled 

by its parent, DENSO Corporation. DENSO Automotive Deutschland GmbH’s President 

serves as one of DENSO Corporation’s executive directors. DENSO Automotive Deutschland 

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

manufactured, marketed and/or sold Spark Plugs, Standard Oxygen Sensors, and Air Fuel 

Ratio Sensors that were purchased throughout the United States, including in this District, 

during the Class Period. 

The Bosch Defendants

93. Defendant Robert Bosch GmbH is a German company with its headquarters in 

Gerlingen, Germany. Robert Bosch GmbH – directly and/or through its subsidiaries, which it 

wholly owned and/or controlled – manufactured, marketed and/or sold Spark Plugs, Standard 

Oxygen Sensors, and Air Fuel Ratio Sensors that were purchased throughout the United States, 

including in this District, during the Class Period. 

94. Defendant Robert Bosch LLC is a Delaware company with its principal place of 

business in Plymouth, Michigan. It is an affiliate of and wholly owned and/or controlled by 

Robert Bosch GmbH. Robert Bosch LLC – directly and/or through its subsidiaries, which it 

2:15-cv-11868-MOB-APP Doc # 1 Filed 05/22/15 Pg 18 of 120 Pg ID 18
REDACTED 

18 

wholly owned and/or controlled – manufactured, marketed and/or sold Spark Plugs, Standard 

Oxygen Sensors, and Air Fuel Ratio Sensors that were purchased throughout the United States, 

including in this District, during the Class Period. 

AGENTS AND CO-CONSPIRATORS 

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

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

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

individuals not named as defendants in this lawsuit, and individuals, the identities of which are 

presently unknown, have participated as co-conspirators with the 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 anticompetitive conduct. 

97. 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, 

employees or representatives while they were actively engaged in the management, direction, 

control or transaction of the corporation’s or limited liability entity’s business or affairs. 

FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS 

A. The Spark Plugs, Standard Oxygen Sensors, and Air Fuel Ratio Sensors Industry 

98. A Spark Plug is an engine component, which delivers high electric voltage from 

the ignition system to the combustion chamber of an internal combustion engine. It ignites the 

compressed fuel/air mixture with an electric spark while containing combustion pressure within 

the engine. Spark Plugs have a basic manufacturing design composed primarily of a shell, an 

2:15-cv-11868-MOB-APP Doc # 1 Filed 05/22/15 Pg 19 of 120 Pg ID 19
REDACTED 

19 

insulator, a center electrode, and an external (ground) electrode. Improvement of the ignitability 

or part longevity may be achieved by using an iridium or platinum alloy for the center electrode 

and a platinum alloy for the ground electrode resulting in platinum or iridium-platinum Spark 

Plugs.

99. In gasoline engines, a Spark Plug is a vital component that is essential for the 

functioning of a vehicle engine. Spark Plugs play a key role in every vehicle that has an internal 

combustion engine. Accordingly, the demand for Spark Plugs is directly linked to the number of 

vehicles produced per year. 

100. Standard Oxygen Sensors are located before and after the catalytic converter in 

the exhaust system and measure the amount of oxygen in the exhaust. A Standard Oxygen 

Sensor provides an input to the engine management computer or “engine control unit,” which 

adjusts the ratio of air-to-fuel injected into the engine to compensate for excess air or excess fuel. 

Standard Oxygen Sensors are “switching” sensors, which essentially detect two states: rich or 

lean. The Standard Oxygen Sensor element is a ceramic thimble plated inside and out with 

electrodes. These electrodes measure the difference in oxygen between the exhaust gas and the 

external air, and then generate an output voltage depending on the difference between the two 

measured values.

101. Air Fuel Ratio Sensors are located before the catalytic converter. An Air Fuel 

Ratio Sensor is paired with a special interface circuit, so it can produce an electric current 

corresponding to the actual proportion of the exhaust gas oxygen concentration enabling more 

precise control of the air-to-fuel ratio injected into the engine. This “wideband” sensor 

incorporates an electrochemical gas pump. An electronic circuit containing a feedback loop 

2:15-cv-11868-MOB-APP Doc # 1 Filed 05/22/15 Pg 20 of 120 Pg ID 20
REDACTED 

20 

controls the gas pump current, so that the pump current directly indicates the oxygen content of 

the exhaust gas.

102. Spark Plugs, Standard Oxygen Sensors, and Air Fuel Ratio Sensors are installed 

by vehicle original equipment manufacturers (“OEMs”) in new vehicles as part of the 

automotive manufacturing process. 

103. For new vehicles, OEMs – mostly large automotive manufacturers – purchase 

Spark Plugs, Standard Oxygen Sensors, and Air Fuel Ratio Sensors directly from the Defendants. 

104. When purchasing Spark Plugs, Standard Oxygen Sensors, and Air Fuel Ratio 

Sensors, OEMs issue Requests for Quotations (“RFQs”) to automotive parts suppliers. These 

RFQs may be issued on a model-by-model basis for model-specific parts or for a specific engine 

to be incorporated into multiple models. Manufacturers of Spark Plugs, Standard Oxygen 

Sensors, and Air Fuel Ratio Sensors submit quotations, or bids, to automobile manufacturers in 

response to RFQs. Typically, the bidding process for a particular model or a particular engine 

begins approximately three years prior to the start of production. 

105. The Defendants and their co-conspirators supplied Spark Plugs, Standard 

Oxygen Sensors, and Air Fuel Ratio Sensors to OEMs for installation in vehicles manufactured 

and sold in the United States and elsewhere. The Defendants and their co-conspirators 

manufactured Spark Plugs, Standard Oxygen Sensors, and Air Fuel Ratio Sensors (a) in the 

United States for installation in vehicles manufactured and sold in the United States, (b) in Japan 

and elsewhere for export to the United States and installation in vehicles manufactured and sold 

in the United States, and (c) in Japan and elsewhere for installation in vehicles manufactured in 

Japan and elsewhere for export to and sale in the United States. 

2:15-cv-11868-MOB-APP Doc # 1 Filed 05/22/15 Pg 21 of 120 Pg ID 21
REDACTED 

21 

106. Plaintiffs and members of the proposed Classes purchased Spark Plugs, 

Standard Oxygen Sensors, and Air Fuel Ratio Sensors indirectly from one or more of the 

Defendants. By way of example, an owner or lessee of a new vehicle may indirectly purchase a 

Spark Plug from the Defendants as part of purchasing or leasing the new vehicle. 

107. NGK’s main customers include DaimlerChrysler AG, Ford Motor Company, 

Subaru, Honda Motor Company, Ltd., General Motors Corporation, Nissan Motor Co., Ltd., 

Toyota Motor Corporation, and certain of their subsidiaries in the United States and elsewhere. 

108. DENSO’s main customers include Honda Motor Company, Ltd., Nissan Motor 

Co., Ltd., Toyota Motor Corporation, General Motors Corporation, Hyundai Motor Co., Mazda 

Motor Corporation, Mitsubishi Motors Corporation, Suzuki Motor Corporation, Fuji Heavy 

Industries, Ltd., Volvo Car Corporation, Yamaha Motor Company, DaimlerChrysler AG, Ford 

Motor Company, Kawasaki Heavy Industries, Ltd., Volkswagen, and certain of their subsidiaries 

in the United States and elsewhere. 

109. Bosch’s main customers include Nissan Motor Co., Ltd., General Motors 

Corporation, Mazda Motor Corporation, Mitsubishi Motors Corporation, DaimlerChrysler AG, 

Ford Motor Company, DaimlerChrysler AG, Mitsubishi Motors Corporation, Toyota Motor 

Corporation, Hyundai Motor Co., Volkswagen, and certain of their subsidiaries in the United 

States and elsewhere. 

110. According to Research and Markets, the Spark Plugs market is anticipated to 

grow at a Compound Annual Growth Rate (CAGR) of 5.29 percent from 2014 to 2019. The 

global market value for Spark Plugs is projected to reach over USD 2.76 billion by 2019. The 

global demand for Spark Plugs is propelled by the increasing number of vehicles across the 

globe, and the impending stringent fuel efficiency and emission norms. North America holds 

2:15-cv-11868-MOB-APP Doc # 1 Filed 05/22/15 Pg 22 of 120 Pg ID 22
REDACTED 

22 

the second position in the market for Spark Plugs as this region has the majority of gasoline 

vehicles. The major contributor to the market in the North American region is the United 

States, which has the largest production of gasoline engines. 

111. Per MarketsandMarkets, the Sensors market is anticipated to grow at a CAGR of 

8.6 percent from 2014 to 2022 and reach USD 35.78 billion in 2022, though this includes 

pressure, temperature, level, speed, MEMS, and Nox sensors in addition to Oxygen Sensors. 

112. According to Research and Markets, the Spark Plugs market is anticipated to 

grow at a CAGR of 5.29 percent from 2014 to 2019. The global market value for Spark Plugs 

is projected to reach over USD 2.76 billion by 2019. Per MarketsandMarkets, the Sensors 

market is anticipated to grow at a CAGR of 8.6 percent from 2014 to 2022 and reach USD 

35.78 billion in 2022, though this includes pressure, temperature, level, speed, MEMS, and 

Nox sensors in addition to Oxygen Sensors. 

B. Defendants and Their Co-Conspirators Increased Prices for Spark Plugs, Standard 

Oxygen Sensors, and Air Fuel Ratio Sensors Despite Steady Costs 

113. In a competitive market, falling material and labor costs would lead to decreased 

prices because each competitor would be afraid that other competitors would attempt to take 

advantage of their lower costs to lower their prices to capture market share. The only 

economically rational action in such a situation is for each competitor to lower its own prices. 

114. In a market where competitors have engaged in a conspiracy to fix prices, 

however, competitors do not lower prices even when faced with steady or decreasing input costs. 

Such price decreases are unnecessary because the conspirators know that they will not lose sales 

to lower-priced competitors. 

115. The price of Spark Plugs, Standard Oxygen Sensors, and Air Fuel Ratio Sensors 

increased during the Class Period, while major input costs virtually remained the same. In a 

2:15-cv-11868-MOB-APP Doc # 1 Filed 05/22/15 Pg 23 of 120 Pg ID 23
REDACTED 

23 

competitive market, steady input costs should not have resulted in rising prices for Spark Plugs, 

Standard Oxygen Sensors, and Air Fuel Ratio Sensors to Defendants’ and their co-conspirators’ 

customers. Such anticompetitive price increases have resulted in Plaintiffs and members of the 

Class paying supra-competitive prices. 

C. The Structure and Characteristics of the Spark Plugs, Standard Oxygen Sensors, 

and Air Fuel Ratio Sensors Markets Render the Conspiracy More Plausible 

116. The structure and other characteristics of the Spark Plugs, Standard Oxygen 

Sensors, and Air Fuel Ratio Sensors markets in the United States are conducive to a price-fixing 

agreement and have made collusion particularly attractive in this market. Specifically, the Spark 

Plugs, Standard Oxygen Sensors, and Air Fuel Ratio Sensors markets: (1) have high barriers to 

entry; (2) have inelasticity of demand; (3) are highly concentrated; and (4) are rife with 

opportunities to conspire. 

1. The Spark Plugs, Standard Oxygen Sensors, and Air Fuel Ratio 

Sensors Markets Have High Barriers to Entry 

117. 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 to enter the market. Thus, barriers to entry help to facilitate the formation and maintenance 

of a cartel. 

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

into the Spark Plugs, Standard Oxygen Sensors, and Air Fuel Ratio Sensors markets. 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. 

2:15-cv-11868-MOB-APP Doc # 1 Filed 05/22/15 Pg 24 of 120 Pg ID 24
REDACTED 

24 

119. The Defendants own several patents related to the manufacture of Spark Plugs, 

Standard Oxygen Sensors, and Air Fuel Ratio Sensors. For instance, NGK owns several patents 

for different types of Spark Plugs. These patents place a significant and costly burden on 

potential new entrants, who must avoid infringing on those patents when entering the market 

with a new product. 

120. In addition, OEMs cannot change Spark Plugs, Standard Oxygen Sensors, and Air 

Fuel Ratio Sensors suppliers randomly after they choose one because the OEMs design the 

features of their vehicles so that the Spark Plugs, Standard Oxygen Sensors, and Air Fuel Ratio 

Sensors it purchases for a vehicle are then integrated with the electronics and mechanics of the 

particular vehicle model. Thus, Spark Plugs, Standard Oxygen Sensors, and Air Fuel Ratio 

Sensors manufacturers and OEMs must agree on a design that is unique to a particular vehicle 

model. It would be difficult for a new market entrant to do so. 

2. There is Inelasticity of Demand for Spark Plugs, Standard Oxygen 

Sensors, and Air Fuel Ratio Sensors 

121. “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. 

122. 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. 

2:15-cv-11868-MOB-APP Doc # 1 Filed 05/22/15 Pg 25 of 120 Pg ID 25
REDACTED 

25 

123. Demand for Spark Plugs, Standard Oxygen Sensors, and Air Fuel Ratio Sensors is 

highly inelastic. Demand for Spark Plugs, Standard Oxygen Sensors, and Air Fuel Ratio Sensors 

is inelastic because there are no close substitutes for these products. In addition, customers must 

purchase Spark Plugs, Standard Oxygen Sensors, and Air Fuel Ratio Sensors as essential parts of 

a vehicle, even if the prices are kept at a supra-competitive level. 

3. The Markets for Spark Plugs, Standard Oxygen Sensors, and Air 

Fuel Ratio Sensors Are Highly Concentrated 

124. A highly concentrated market is more susceptible to collusion and other anticompetitive practices. 

125. The Bosch and DENSO Defendants dominate the automotive parts industry. As 

of June 2014, Robert Bosch GmbH and DENSO Corporation were No. 1 and No. 2, respectively, 

on Automotive News’ Top 100 Global OEM Parts Suppliers list, which ranked companies by 

sales of original equipment parts in 2013. Robert Bosch GmbH and DENSO Corporation had 

total global OEM automotive parts sales of over USD 40 billion and over USD 35 billion in 

2013, respectively. In June 2001, Robert Bosch GmbH and DENSO Corporation were No. 3 and 

No. 4, respectively, on Automotive News’ Top 100 Global OEM Parts Suppliers list, which 

ranked companies by sales of original equipment parts in 2000. Robert Bosch GmbH and 

DENSO Corporation had total global OEM automotive parts sales of over USD 17 billion and 

over USD 16 billion in 2000, respectively. The Bosch and DENSO Defendants’ increased 

market share of the automotive parts industry from 2000 to 2013 is consistent with their 

conspiratorial conduct during the Class Period. 

126. The NGK Defendants dominate the Spark Plugs, Standard Oxygen Sensors, and 

Air Fuel Ratio Sensors markets. According to NGK Spark Plugs Co., Ltd.’s 2014 Annual Report, 

it has the largest share of the global Spark Plugs market with net sales of over USD 3 billion, an 

2:15-cv-11868-MOB-APP Doc # 1 Filed 05/22/15 Pg 26 of 120 Pg ID 26
REDACTED 

26 

operating income of nearly USD 500 million, and a return on equity of 13.5 percent. NGK Spark 

Plugs Co., Ltd.’s sales to North America represent 26 percent, more than any other region in the 

world, including Europe (25 percent), Asia (19 percent), and Japan (17 percent). Per NGK Spark 

Plugs (U.S.A.), Inc.’s website, it is the world’s largest supplier and manufacturer of Standard 

Oxygen Sensors to OEMs. Air Fuel Ratio Sensors are a subset of Standard Oxygen Sensors. 

4. Defendants Had Ample Opportunities to Conspire 

127. 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. For example, Defendants and their coconspirators have regularly attended the annual North American International Auto Show 

(“NAIAS”) in Detroit, Michigan and the Automotive Aftermarket Products Expo in Las Vegas, 

Nevada. Indeed, according to the NAIAS website, DENSO was a premier sponsor of the 2015 

event, which was held on January 12- 25, 2015. 

D. Global Government Investigation into Price-Fixing in the Automotive Parts 

Industry 

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

Europe, Canada and Japan, aimed at suppliers of automotive parts, including Spark Plugs, 

Standard Oxygen Sensors, and Air Fuel Ratio Sensors. A Japan Fair Trade Commission 

(“JFTC”) official told a leading legal publication that the international automotive parts 

investigation would continue to widen because the automotive industry as a whole comprises 

many sub-industries. He characterized the investigation being conducted by the international 

antitrust authorities as “large and broad,” and he declined to deny that this “would be history’s 

largest case.” 

2:15-cv-11868-MOB-APP Doc # 1 Filed 05/22/15 Pg 27 of 120 Pg ID 27
REDACTED 

27 

129. The antitrust probe originated in Europe as the result of several European OEMs 

coming together to bring a complaint to the European Commission (“EC”). One automobile 

maker is said to have failed to attract competitive bids for automotive wire harness systems, 

leading the company to join with other automobile makers to take their complaint to the EC. 

130. On February 8, 2010, the EC executed surprise raids at the European offices of 

certain automotive parts makers as part of an investigation into anti-competitive conduct related 

to the manufacturing and sale of automotive parts. The EC also carried out additional raids at the 

European offices of several suppliers of automotive parts on June 7, 2010. Specifically, EC 

investigators raided the offices of Leoni AG, S-Y Systems Technologies Europe GmbH, Yazaki 

Corporation and DENSO Corporation. “The Commission has reason to believe that the 

companies concerned may have violated European Union antitrust rules that prohibit cartels and 

restrictive business practices,” an EC official said in a statement. 

131. In February 2010, JFTC raided the Tokyo offices of DENSO Corporation as part 

of an expansive investigation into collusion in the automotive parts industry dating back to at 

least 2000. 

132. The JFTC raided offices of Defendants as part of the spreading investigation into 

suspected price fixing of automotive parts. According to its 2011 Annual Report, DENSO 

Corporation’s offices were searched on July 20, 2011 at various locations, including in Kariya, 

Aichi and some other sales branches in Japan. And according to its 2011 Annual Report, 

Mitsubishi Electric Corporation has been subject to investigations conducted by the JFTC since 

July 2011. 

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

activity and coordinating its investigation with antitrust regulators in Europe. “The antitrust 

2:15-cv-11868-MOB-APP Doc # 1 Filed 05/22/15 Pg 28 of 120 Pg ID 28
REDACTED 

28 

division is investigating the possibility of anticompetitive cartel conduct of automotive electronic 

component suppliers,” Justice Department Spokeswoman Gina Talamona said. 

134. Indeed, on February 23, 2010, around the same time as the raids by the Japanese 

and European competition authorities, investigators from the FBI raided three Detroit-area 

Japanese auto parts makers as part of a federal antitrust investigation. The FBI executed warrants 

and searched the offices of these companies, including DENSO Corporation’s subsidiary in 

Southfield, Michigan. Special Agent Sandra Berchtold said the affidavits supporting issuance of 

the warrants were sealed in federal court. 

135. To obtain search warrants, the United States 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. 

E. Defendant DENSO Corporation Pleads Guilty to Price-Fixing ECUs and HCPs 

136. On January 30, 2012, the DOJ announced that Defendant DENSO Corporation 

had agreed to pay a $78 million fine and plead guilty to a two-count criminal Information 

charging it with: (1) participating in a combination and conspiracy 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, electronic control units (“ECUs”) sold to an automobile manufacturer in 

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

2:15-cv-11868-MOB-APP Doc # 1 Filed 05/22/15 Pg 29 of 120 Pg ID 29
REDACTED 

29 

2010 in violation of the Sherman Antitrust Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1; and (2) participating in a 

combination and conspiracy 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, heater 

control panels (“HCPs”) 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. 

F. NGK Pleads Guilty to Price-Fixing Spark Plugs, Standard Oxygen Sensors, and Air 

Fuel Ratio Sensors 

113. On August 19, 2014, the DOJ announced that NGK Spark Plug Co., Ltd. had 

agreed to pay a $52.1 million fine and to plead guilty to a one-count criminal Information 

charging NGK Spark Plug Co., Ltd. with 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, Spark Plugs, Standard 

Oxygen Sensors, and Air Fuel Ratio Sensors sold to DaimlerChrysler AG, Ford Motor Company, 

Subaru, Honda Motor Company, Ltd. General Motors Corporation, Nissan Motor Co., Ltd., 

Toyota Motor Corporation, and certain of their subsidiaries in the United States and elsewhere 

from at least as early as January 2000 and continuing until on or about July 2011 in violation of 

the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1. 

114. According to the criminal Information , NGK Spark Plug Co., Ltd. and its coconspirators carried out the Spark Plugs, Standard Oxygen Sensors, and Air Fuel Ratio Sensors 

conspiracy by: 

(a) participating in meetings, conversations, and communications in Germany and 

Japan to discuss the price quotations to be submitted to certain automobile manufacturers 

in the United States and elsewhere; 

2:15-cv-11868-MOB-APP Doc # 1 Filed 05/22/15 Pg 30 of 120 Pg ID 30
REDACTED 

30 

(b) agreeing, during those meetings, conversations, and communications, on price 

quotations to be submitted to certain automobile manufacturers; 

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

the supply of Spark Plugs, Standard Oxygen Sensors, and Air Fuel Ratio Sensors sold to 

automobile manufacturers in the United States and elsewhere on a model-by-model or on 

an engine-specific basis; 

(d) agreeing, during those meetings, conversations, and communications, to 

coordinate price adjustments requested by certain automobile manufacturers in Japan and 

elsewhere; 

(e) submitting bids, price quotations, and price adjustments to an automobile 

manufacturer in Japan and elsewhere in in accordance with the agreements reached; 

(f) selling Spark Plugs, Standard Oxygen Sensors, and Air Fuel Ratio Sensors to 

certain automobile manufacturers in the United States and elsewhere at collusive and 

noncompetitive prices; and 

(g) accepting payment for Spark Plugs, Standard Oxygen Sensors, and Air Fuel Ratio 

Sensors sold to certain automobile manufacturers in the United States and elsewhere at 

collusive and noncompetitive prices; and 

(h) engaging in meetings, conversations, and communications in Japan and Germany 

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

and price-fixing scheme. 

G. Robert Bosch GmbH Pleads Guilty to Price-Fixing Spark Plugs, Oxygen Sensors 

and Starter Motors 

115. On March 31, 2015, the DOJ announced that Defendant Robert Bosch GmbH 

agreed to pay a $57.8 million criminal fine and to plead guilty to a one-count criminal 

2:15-cv-11868-MOB-APP Doc # 1 Filed 05/22/15 Pg 31 of 120 Pg ID 31
REDACTED 

31 

Information charging Robert Bosch GmbH with 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 Spark Plugs, Oxygen 

Sensors, and starter motors in violation of the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1. Robert Bosch GmbH 

sold Spark Plugs and Oxygen Sensors to Daimler Chrysler AG, Ford Motor Company, General 

Motors Company, Andreas Stihl AG & Co., and certain of their subsidiaries in the United States 

and elsewhere for installation in vehicles and internal combustion engines manufactured and sold 

in the United States and elsewhere from at least as early as January 2000 until at least July 2011. 

Robert Bosch GmbH sold starter motors to Volkswagen AG and certain of its subsidiaries in the 

United States for use in certain Volkswagen vehicles assembled in the United States from at least 

as early as January 2009 until at least June 2010. 

116. According to the criminal Information filed against it, Defendant Robert Bosch 

GmbH Corporation and its co-conspirators carried out the Spark Plugs, Oxygen Sensors, and 

starter motors conspiracy by: 

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

the bids and price quotations to be submitted to certain automobile and internal 

combustion engine manufacturers in the United States and elsewhere; 

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

bids and price quotations to be submitted to an certain automobile and internal 

combustion engine manufacturers; 

(c) agreeing, during those meetings, conversations, and communications, to 

allocate the supply of Spark Plugs, Oxygen Sensors and starter motors sold to 

2:15-cv-11868-MOB-APP Doc # 1 Filed 05/22/15 Pg 32 of 120 Pg ID 32
REDACTED 

32 

automobile and internal combustion engine manufacturers in the United States 

and elsewhere on a model-by-model basis or on an engine-specific basis; 

(d) agreeing, during those meetings, conversations, and communications, to 

coordinate price adjustments requested by certain automobile and internal 

combustion engine manufacturers; 

(e) submitting bids, price quotations, and price adjustments to certain 

automobile and internal combustion engine manufacturers in accordance with the 

agreements reached; 

(f) selling Spark Plugs, Oxygen Sensors and starter motors to certain 

automobile and internal combustion engine manufacturers in the United States 

and elsewhere at collusive and noncompetitive prices; 

(g) accepting payment for Spark Plugs, Oxygen Sensors and starter motors 

sold to certain automobile and internal combustion engine manufacturers in the 

United States and elsewhere 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 pricefixing scheme. 

H. Likely Existence of a Cooperating Defendant 

137. 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 DOJ. In most recent cases in which guilty pleas for price-fixing conduct have 

been obtained, there has been a cooperating party that has been accepted into the DOJ’s 

ACPERA program as an “amnesty applicant.” One of the leniency benefits for a conspirator that 

2:15-cv-11868-MOB-APP Doc # 1 Filed 05/22/15 Pg 33 of 120 Pg ID 33
REDACTED 

33 

is accepted into the ACPERA program is that it is not charged with a criminal offense and is not 

required to plead guilty to criminal charges. 

138. In light of the multiple guilty pleas in this case, in related automotive parts 

antitrust cases and the DOJ’s ongoing investigation into the industry, the Court may infer that 

there is an ACPERA “amnesty applicant” in this case. 

H. Additional Criminal Pleadings in the Automotive Parts Industry 

139. On September 29, 2011, the DOJ announced that Furukawa Electric Co. Ltd. had 

agreed to plead guilty and to pay a $200 million criminal fine for its role in a criminal pricefixing and bid-rigging conspiracy involving the sale of automotive wire harnesses and related 

products to automobile manufacturers. 

140. In the press release announcing the fine against Furukawa Electric Co. Ltd., 

Sharis A. Pozen, then the Acting Assistant Attorney General in charge of the DOJ’s Antitrust 

Division, said that “[a]s a result of this international price-fixing and bid-rigging conspiracy, 

automobile manufacturers paid noncompetitive and higher prices for parts in cars sold to U.S. 

consumers.” Ms. Pozen also stated that “[t]his cartel harmed an important industry in our 

nation’s economy, and the Antitrust Division with the Federal Bureau of Investigation will 

continue to work together to ensure that these kinds of conspiracies are stopped.” The press 

release also quoted FBI’s Special Agent in Charge Andrew G. Arena, who said that “[w]hen 

companies partner to control and price fix bids or contracts, it undermines the foundation of the 

United States’ economic system,” and that “[t]he FBI is committed to aggressively pursuing any 

company involved in antitrust crimes.” 

141. On January 30, 2012, the DOJ announced that Yazaki Corporation agreed to plead 

guilty and to pay a $470 million criminal fine and DENSO Corporation, as stated above, had 

2:15-cv-11868-MOB-APP Doc # 1 Filed 05/22/15 Pg 34 of 120 Pg ID 34
REDACTED 

34 

agreed to plead guilty and to pay a $78 million criminal fine for their respective involvement in 

multiple price-fixing and bid-rigging conspiracies in the sale of automotive parts to automobile 

manufacturers in the United States. According to the three-count criminal Information filed 

against Yazaki, it engaged in three separate conspiracies: (i) to rig bids for and to fix, stabilize, 

and maintain the prices of, automotive wire harnesses and related products sold to certain 

automobile manufacturers in the United States and elsewhere; (ii) to rig bids for and to fix, 

stabilize, and maintain the prices of, instrument panel clusters sold to certain automobile 

manufacturers in the United States and elsewhere; and (iii) to fix, stabilize, and maintain the 

prices of fuel senders sold to an automobile manufacturer in the United States and elsewhere. 

According to the two-count felony charge against Defendant DENSO Corporation, it engaged in 

conspiracies to rig bids for, and to fix, stabilize, and maintain the prices of ECUs and HCPs sold 

to an automobile manufacturer in the United States and elsewhere. 

142. Also on January 30, 2012, four executives from Yazaki Corporation (all Japanese 

nationals) – Tsuneaki Hanamura, Ryoji Kuwai, Shigeru Ogawa, and Hisamitsu Takada – agreed 

to plead guilty to their participation in a conspiracy 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 automotive wire harnesses sold to certain automobile manufacturers in the United States and 

elsewhere in violation of the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1. These four executives of Yazaki 

Corporation will serve prison time ranging from 15 months to two years. The two-year sentences 

would be the longest term of imprisonment imposed on a foreign national voluntarily submitting 

to U.S. jurisdiction for a Sherman Act antitrust violation. 

143. In the press release announcing the fines against Yazaki Corporation, its 

executives, and Defendant DENSO Corporation, Ms. Pozen vowed to continue the investigation 

2:15-cv-11868-MOB-APP Doc # 1 Filed 05/22/15 Pg 35 of 120 Pg ID 35
REDACTED 

35 

into “pernicious cartel conduct that results in higher prices to American consumers . . . .” In the 

same press release, Special Agent in Charge Andrew G. Arena said that “[t]his criminal activity 

has a significant impact on the automotive manufacturers in the United States, Canada, Japan and 

Europe and has been occurring for at least a decade. The conduct had also affected commerce on 

a global scale in almost every market where automobiles are manufactured and/or sold[.]” 

144. Ms. Pozen said there is no doubt consumers were hurt financially by the 

automotive wire harness price-fixing conspiracy. She further stated: “By rigging bids on wiring 

harnesses . . . the three companies inflated what some of their auto manufacturer clients paid, and 

indirectly, what consumers paid for some cars.” 

145. On March 26, 2012, the DOJ announced that Norihiro Imai, an executive of 

Defendant DENSO Corporation, agreed to serve one year and one day in a U.S. prison, pay a 

$20,000 criminal fine, and plead guilty to a one-count criminal Information charging him with 

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

to customers in the United States and elsewhere. 

146. On April 3, 2012, the DOJ announced that G.S. Electech, Inc. agreed to plead 

guilty and to pay a $2.75 million criminal fine for its role in a conspiracy to rig bids for, and to 

fix, stabilize, and maintain the prices of, speed sensor wire assemblies used on antilock brake 

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

147. On April 23, 2012, the DOJ announced that Fujikura Ltd. had agreed to plead 

guilty and to pay a $20 million criminal fine for its role in a conspiracy to rig bids for, and to fix, 

stabilize, and maintain the prices of, automotive wire harnesses and related products sold to an 

automobile manufacturer in the United States and elsewhere. 

2:15-cv-11868-MOB-APP Doc # 1 Filed 05/22/15 Pg 36 of 120 Pg ID 36
REDACTED 

36 

148. On April 26, 2012, the DOJ announced that Makoto Hattori, an executive of 

Defendant DENSO Corporation, agreed to serve fourteen months in a U.S. prison, pay a $20,000 

criminal fine, and plead guilty to a one-count criminal Information charging him with engaging 

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

customer in the United States and elsewhere. 

149. On June 6, 2012, the DOJ announced that Autoliv Inc. agreed to plead guilty to a 

two-count criminal Information and to pay a $14.5 million criminal fine for its involvement in a 

combination and conspiracy to suppress competition in the automotive parts industry by (i) 

agreeing to rig bids for, and to fix, stabilize, and maintain the prices of, certain seatbelts sold to a 

Japanese automobile manufacturer; and (ii) agreeing to rig bids for, and to fix, stabilize, and 

maintain the prices of, certain seatbelts, airbags, and/or steering wheels sold to a Japanese 

automobile manufacturer. 

150. On July 30, 2012, the DOJ announced that TRW Deutschland Holding GmbH 

agreed to plead guilty and to pay a $5.1 million criminal fine for its involvement in a 

combination and conspiracy, through its employees, including high level employees of its 

wholly-owned subsidiaries, 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 seatbelts, 

airbags and steering wheels sold to two German automobile manufacturers in the United States 

and elsewhere. 

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

plead guilty and to pay a $1 million criminal fine for its involvement in a combination and 

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

2:15-cv-11868-MOB-APP Doc # 1 Filed 05/22/15 Pg 37 of 120 Pg ID 37
REDACTED 

37 

and to fix, stabilize, and maintain the prices of, instrument panel clusters sold to an automobile 

manufacturer in in the United States and elsewhere. 

152. On October 30, 2012, the DOJ announced that Tokai Rika Co. Ltd. agreed to 

plead guilty and to pay a $17.7 million criminal fine for its involvement in a conspiracy to rig 

bids for, and to fix, stabilize, and maintain the prices of, HCPs sold to Toyota Motor Corporation 

and Toyota Motor Engineering & Manufacturing North America, Inc. in the United States and 

elsewhere. Tokai Rika also agreed to plead guilty to a charge of obstruction of justice related to 

the investigation of the antitrust violation. 

153. On February 15, 2013, Scott Hammond, the Deputy Assistant Attorney General in 

the DOJ’s Antitrust Division, discussed the DOJ’s ongoing automotive parts investigation in a 

Thomson Reuters article. He said “[t]he investigation is broader than what we’ve announced so 

far . . . . [The investigation] is still very much ongoing, but it already appears to be the biggest 

criminal antitrust investigation that we’ve ever encountered. I say the biggest with respect to the 

impact on U.S. businesses and consumers, and the number of companies and executives that 

are subject to the investigation.” (emphasis added). 

154. On May 21, 2013, the DOJ announced that Yuji Suzuki, an executive of 

Defendant DENSO Corporation, agreed to serve sixteen months in a U.S. prison, pay a $20,000 

criminal fine, and plead guilty to a two-count criminal Information for his role in a conspiracy to 

rig bids for, and to fix, stabilize, and maintain the prices of electronic control units and HCPs 

sold in the United States and elsewhere. 

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

agreed to plead guilty and to pay a $19 million criminal fine for its involvement in a combination 

and conspiracy to suppress competition in the automotive parts industry by agreeing to rig bids 

2:15-cv-11868-MOB-APP Doc # 1 Filed 05/22/15 Pg 38 of 120 Pg ID 38
REDACTED 

38 

for, and to fix, stabilize, and maintain the prices of, ignition coils sold to automobile 

manufacturers in the United States and elsewhere. 

156. 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.” 

157. 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 various automotive parts 

including high intensity discharge (“HID”) ballasts, switches and steering angle sensors installed 

in automobiles sold in the United States and elsewhere. 

158. On September 26, 2013, nine additional Japanese automotive 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 automotive products: 

(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 automotive parts, including, among others, air 

flow meters, fuel injection systems, and electronic throttle bodies, sold to 

automobile 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 certain automotive parts sold to automobile 

manufacturers in the United States and elsewhere. For purposes of Mitsuba’s plea 

agreement, “automotive parts” are defined to include, among other automotive 

2:15-cv-11868-MOB-APP Doc # 1 Filed 05/22/15 Pg 39 of 120 Pg ID 39
REDACTED 

39 

products, electric throttle motors and fuel pumps. Mitsuba also agreed to plead 

guilty to one count of obstruction of justice because of the 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 automotive 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 certain automotive parts sold to automobile 

manufacturers in the United States and elsewhere. For purposes of Mitsubishi 

Electric Corporation’s plea agreement, “automotive parts” are defined to include, 

among other automotive products, fuel injectors, fuel pumps, MAP Sensors, and 

throttle bodies; 

(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 

automobile 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 Toyota Motor Corporation 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 

2:15-cv-11868-MOB-APP Doc # 1 Filed 05/22/15 Pg 40 of 120 Pg ID 40
REDACTED 

40 

for, and to fix, stabilize and maintain the prices of air conditioning systems sold to 

automobile 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 automobile manufacturers in the United States and 

elsewhere; 

(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 an automobile manufacturer 

in the United States and elsewhere; and 

(i) Yamashita Rubber Co. Ltd. agreed to plead guilty and to pay an $11 

million criminal fine for its participation in a conspiracy to rig bids for, and to fix, 

raise and maintain the prices of automotive anti-vibration rubber products sold in 

the United States and elsewhere to automobile manufacturers. 

159. On the same day, September 26, 2013, United States Attorney General Eric 

Holder presented the DOJ’s most recent findings in the ongoing automotive parts investigation. 

He stated “[t]hese international price-fixing conspiracies affected more than $5 billion in 

automotive parts sold to U.S. car manufacturers. In total, more than 25 million cars purchased by 

American consumers were affected by the illegal conduct.” Attorney General 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. To keep their illegal conduct 

2:15-cv-11868-MOB-APP Doc # 1 Filed 05/22/15 Pg 41 of 120 Pg ID 41
REDACTED 

41 

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 automotive 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.” 

160. 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 manufacturers 

have admitted price-fixing. 

2:15-cv-11868-MOB-APP Doc # 1 Filed 05/22/15 Pg 42 of 120 Pg ID 42
REDACTED 

42 

161. On October 9, 2013, Takata Corporation announced that it agreed to pay $71.3 

million to settle antitrust charges brought by the United States federal prosecutors for its role in a 

conspiracy to price-fix seatbelts. 

162. On November 26, 2013, the DOJ announced that Toyo Tire & Rubber Co. Ltd. 

agreed to plead guilty and to pay a $120 million criminal fine for its role in two separate 

conspiracies to fix the prices of automotive components involving anti-vibration rubber and 

driveshaft parts installed in automobiles in the United States and elsewhere. 

2:15-cv-11868-MOB-APP Doc # 1 Filed 05/22/15 Pg 43 of 120 Pg ID 43
REDACTED 

43 

163. On November 27, 2013, the DOJ announced that Stanley Electric Co. Ltd. agreed 

to plead guilty and to pay a $1.44 million criminal fine for its participation in a conspiracy to fix 

prices of high-intensity discharge (HID) lamp ballasts installed in automobiles sold in the United 

States and elsewhere. 

164. On January 16, 2014, the DOJ announced that Koito Manufacturing Co. Ltd. 

agreed to plead guilty and to pay a $56.6 million criminal fine for its roles in separate pricefixing conspiracies involving automobile lighting fixtures and automotive HID lamp ballasts 

installed in cars sold in the United States and elsewhere. 

165. On February 3, 2014, the DOJ announced that Aisan Industry Co. Ltd. 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 an automobile manufacturer in the United States and 

elsewhere. 

166. On February 13, 2014, the DOJ announced that Bridgestone Corp. agreed to plead 

guilty and to pay a $425 million criminal fine for its role in a conspiracy to fix prices of 

automotive anti-vibration rubber parts installed in automobiles sold in the United States and 

elsewhere. 

167. On February 20, 2014, the DOJ announced that Kazuaki Fujitani, a former 

executive of Defendant DENSO corporation, agreed to serve one year and one day in a U.S. 

prison and plead guilty to a one-count criminal Information charging him with obstruction of 

justice for deleting numerous e-mails and electronic documents upon learning the FBI was 

executing a search warrant on Defendant DENSO International America, Inc. in connection with 

the DOJ’s investigation into a conspiracy to fix the prices of HCPs installed in automobiles sold 

in the United States and elsewhere 

2:15-cv-11868-MOB-APP Doc # 1 Filed 05/22/15 Pg 44 of 120 Pg ID 44
REDACTED 

44 

168. 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 installed in cars sold in the United States 

and elsewhere. 

169. On August 19, 2014, the DOJ announced that Defendant NGK Sparkplug Co. Ltd. 

agreed to plead guilty and to pay a $52.1 million criminal fine for its role in the conspiracy 

alleged herein. 

170. On September 29, 2014, the DOJ announced that Toyoda Gosei Co. Ltd. agreed 

to plead guilty and to pay a $26 million criminal fine for its involvement in a combination and 

conspiracy to suppress competition in the automotive parts industry by agreeing to allocate sales 

of, to rig bids for, and to fix, stabilize, and maintain the prices of certain automotive hoses sold to 

Toyota in the United States and by agreeing to allocate sales of, to rig bids for, and to fix, 

stabilize, and maintain the prices of, automotive airbags and steering wheels sold to Subaru and 

Toyota in the United States and elsewhere. 

171. On October 31, 2014, the DOJ announced that Hitachi Metals Ltd. agreed to plead 

guilty and to pay a $1.25 million criminal fine for its role in a conspiracy to allocate the sales of, 

to rig bids for, and to fix, raise, and maintain the prices of automotive brake hose sold to Toyota 

in the United States and elsewhere. 

172. 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 installed in cars sold to automobile manufacturers in 

the United States and elsewhere. 

2:15-cv-11868-MOB-APP Doc # 1 Filed 05/22/15 Pg 45 of 120 Pg ID 45
REDACTED 

45 

173. On November 24, 2014, the DOJ announced that Continental Automotive 

Electronics LLC and Continental Automotive Korea Ltd. agreed to plead guilty and to pay a 

criminal fine of $4 million for their roles in a conspiracy to rig bids of instrument panel clusters 

installed in vehicles manufactured and sold in the United States. 

174. 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 participation in a combination and 

conspiracy to suppress and eliminate competition in the automotive parts industry by agreeing to 

fix, stabilize, and maintain the prices of compressors sold to Nissan in the United States and 

elsewhere. 

175. On March 31, 2015, the DOJ announced that Defendant 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 sold to automobile and 

internal combustion engine manufacturers in the United States and elsewhere. 

176. To date, 35 companies and 55 executives have been charged in the Antitrust 

Division’s ongoing investigation into price-fixing and bid-rigging in the automotive parts 

industry. Each of the 35 companies has either pleaded guilty or agreed to plead guilty and 

altogether, they have agreed to pay nearly $2.5 billion in criminal fines. 

177. “This criminal activity has a significant impact on the automotive manufacturers 

in the United States, Canada, Japan and Europe and has been occurring at least a decade. The 

conduct had also affected commerce on a global scale in almost every market where automobiles 

are manufactured and/or sold,” said FBI’s Special Agent in Charge Andrew G. Arena. “When 

companies partner to control and price fix bids or contracts, it undermines the foundation of the 

2:15-cv-11868-MOB-APP Doc # 1 Filed 05/22/15 Pg 46 of 120 Pg ID 46
REDACTED 

46 

United States’ economic system,” Arena also said. “The FBI is committed to aggressively 

pursuing any company involved in antitrust crimes.” 

178. The scheme drove up costs for consumers since the prices were illegally fixed on 

expensive electrical parts and have risen in cost as vehicles have become more complex in recent 

years, Jim Gillette, an analyst with the firm HIS Automotive, said. Gillette estimated that the 

price-fixing of wire harnesses alone cost automobile makers hundreds of millions of dollars. 

I. Illustrative Examples 

180.

2:15-cv-11868-MOB-APP Doc # 1 Filed 05/22/15 Pg 47 of 120 Pg ID 47
REDACTED 

47 

 

181.

182.

183.

184.

2:15-cv-11868-MOB-APP Doc # 1 Filed 05/22/15 Pg 48 of 120 Pg ID 48
REDACTED 

48 

185.

186.

2:15-cv-11868-MOB-APP Doc # 1 Filed 05/22/15 Pg 49 of 120 Pg ID 49
REDACTED 

49 

187.

188.

189.

2:15-cv-11868-MOB-APP Doc # 1 Filed 05/22/15 Pg 50 of 120 Pg ID 50
REDACTED 

50 

CLASS ACTION ALLEGATIONS 

190. 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 persons and entities who, during the Class Period, purchased or leased a new 

vehicle in the United States not for resale which included one or more Spark 

Plug(s), Standard Oxygen Sensors(s), or Air Fuel Ratio Sensor(s) as a component 

part, which were manufactured or sold by a Defendant, any current or former 

subsidiary of a Defendant or any co-conspirators of the Defendants. 

191. 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 state 

antitrust, unfair competition, and consumer protection laws as well as common law unjust 

enrichment on behalf of the following class (the “Damages Class”): 

All persons and entities who, during the Class Period, purchased or leased a new 

vehicle in the Indirect Purchaser States1

 not for resale which included one or more 

Spark Plug(s), Standard Oxygen Sensors(s), or Air Fuel Ratio Sensor(s) as a 

component part, which were manufactured or sold by a Defendant, any current or 

former subsidiary of a Defendant or any co-conspirator of the Defendants. 

192. The Nationwide Class and the Damages Class are referred to herein as the 

“Classes.” Excluded from the Classes are the 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, and persons 

who purchased Spark Plug(s), Standard Oxygen Sensor(s), or Air Fuel Ratio Sensor(s) directly 

or for resale. 

 

1

 The Indirect Purchaser States are the states listed in the Second and Third Claims for 

Relief. 

2:15-cv-11868-MOB-APP Doc # 1 Filed 05/22/15 Pg 51 of 120 Pg ID 51
REDACTED 

51 

193. While Plaintiffs do not know the exact number of the members of the Classes, 

Plaintiffs believe there are (at least) thousands of members in each Class. 

194. Common questions of law and fact exist as to all members of the Classes. This is 

particularly true given the nature of the 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 the Defendants and their co-conspirators engaged in a combination 

and conspiracy among themselves to fix, raise, maintain or stabilize the prices of 

Spark Plugs, Standard Oxygen Sensors, and Air Fuel Ratio Sensors 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; 

(e) Whether the alleged conspiracy violated state antitrust, unfair competition, 

and/or consumer protection laws, as alleged in the Second and Third Claims for 

Relief; 

(f) Whether the 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; 

2:15-cv-11868-MOB-APP Doc # 1 Filed 05/22/15 Pg 52 of 120 Pg ID 52
REDACTED 

52 

(g) Whether the conduct of the 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 Spark Plugs, Standard 

Oxygen Sensors, and Air Fuel Ratio Sensors sold in the United States during the 

Class Period; 

(i) Whether Plaintiffs and the members of the Classes had any reason to know or 

suspect the conspiracy, or any means to discover the conspiracy; 

(j) Whether the Defendants and their co-conspirators fraudulently concealed the 

conspiracy’s existence from Plaintiffs and the members of the Classes; 

(k) The appropriate injunctive and related equitable relief for the Nationwide 

Class; and 

(l) The appropriate class-wide measure of damages for the Damages Class. 

195. 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 the Defendants’ wrongful conduct in that they 

paid artificially inflated prices for Spark Plugs, Standard Oxygen Sensors, and Air Fuel Ratio 

Sensors purchased indirectly from the Defendants and/or their co-conspirators. 

196. 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. 

2:15-cv-11868-MOB-APP Doc # 1 Filed 05/22/15 Pg 53 of 120 Pg ID 53
REDACTED 

53 

197. 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. 

198. 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, including providing injured persons or entities with a method for obtaining redress 

for claims that might not be practicable to pursue individually, substantially outweigh any 

difficulties that may arise in the management of this class action. 

199. 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 the Defendants. 

PLAINTIFFS AND THE CLASSES SUFFERED ANTITRUST INJURY 

200. The Defendants’ price-fixing conspiracy had the following effects, among others: 

(a) Price competition has been restrained or eliminated with respect to Spark 

Plugs, Standard Oxygen Sensors, and Air Fuel Ratio Sensors; 

(b) The prices of Spark Plugs, Standard Oxygen Sensors, and Air Fuel Ratio 

Sensors have been fixed, raised, maintained, or stabilized at artificially inflated 

levels; 

(c) Indirect purchasers of Spark Plugs, Standard Oxygen Sensors, and Air Fuel 

Ratio Sensors have been deprived of free and open competition; and 

2:15-cv-11868-MOB-APP Doc # 1 Filed 05/22/15 Pg 54 of 120 Pg ID 54
REDACTED 

54 

(d) Indirect purchasers of Spark Plugs, Standard Oxygen Sensors, and Air 

Fuel Ratio Sensors paid artificially inflated prices. 

201. During the Class Period, Plaintiffs and the members of the Classes paid supracompetitive prices for Spark Plugs, Standard Oxygen Sensors, and Air Fuel Ratio Sensors. 

OEMS and automotive dealers passed on inflated prices to Plaintiffs and the members of the 

Classes. Those overcharges have unjustly enriched Defendants. 

202. The markets for Spark Plugs, Standard Oxygen Sensors, and Air Fuel Ratio 

Sensors and vehicles are inextricably linked and intertwined because the market for Spark Plugs, 

Standard Oxygen Sensors, and Air Fuel Ratio Sensors exists to serve the vehicle market. Without 

the vehicles, the Spark Plugs, Standard Oxygen Sensors, and Air Fuel Ratio Sensors have little to 

no value because they have no independent utility. Indeed, the demand for vehicles creates the 

demand for Spark Plugs, Standard Oxygen Sensors, and Air Fuel Ratio Sensors. As stated in the 

2010 Annual Report of Lear Corporation, an automotive parts supplier: “Our sales are driven by 

the number of vehicles produced by the automotive manufacturers, which is ultimately 

dependent on consumer fleet demand for automotive vehicles.” 

203. Spark Plugs, Standard Oxygen Sensors, and Air Fuel Ratio Sensors are 

identifiable, discrete physical products that remain essentially unchanged when incorporated into 

a vehicle. As a result, Spark Plugs, Standard Oxygen Sensors, and Air Fuel Ratio Sensors follow 

a traceable physical chain of distribution from the Defendants to Plaintiffs and the members of 

the Classes, and costs attributable to Spark Plugs, Standard Oxygen Sensors, and Air Fuel Ratio 

Sensors can be traced through the chain of distribution to Plaintiffs and the members of the 

Classes. 

2:15-cv-11868-MOB-APP Doc # 1 Filed 05/22/15 Pg 55 of 120 Pg ID 55
REDACTED 

55 

204. Just as Spark Plugs, Standard Oxygen Sensors, and Air Fuel Ratio Sensors 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 Spark Plugs, Standard Oxygen Sensors, and Air Fuel 

Ratio Sensors affect prices paid by indirect purchasers of new motor vehicles containing Spark 

Plugs, Standard Oxygen Sensors, and Air Fuel Ratio Sensors. 

205. While even a monopolist would increase its prices when the cost of its inputs 

increased, the economic necessity of passing through cost changes increases with the degree of 

competition a firm faces. The OEM and dealer markets for new motor vehicles are subject to 

vigorous price competition. The OEMs and dealers have thin net margins, and are therefore at 

the mercy of their component costs, such that increases in the price of components such as Spark 

Plugs, Standard Oxygen Sensors, and Air Fuel Ratio Sensors lead to corresponding increases in 

prices for new motor vehicles at the OEM and dealer levels. When downstream distribution 

markets are highly competitive, as they are in the case of new motor vehicles containing Spark 

Plugs, Standard Oxygen Sensors, and Air Fuel Ratio Sensors as components, overcharges are 

passed through to ultimate consumers, such as the indirect-purchaser Plaintiffs and members of 

the Classes. 

206. Hence the inflated prices of Spark Plugs, Standard Oxygen Sensors, and Air Fuel 

Ratio Sensors in new motor vehicles resulting from Defendants’ bid-rigging and price-fixing 

conspiracy have been passed on to Plaintiffs and the other members of the Classes by OEMs and 

dealers. 

207. The economic and legal literature has recognized that unlawful overcharges in a 

component normally result in higher prices for products containing that price-fixed component. 

Two antitrust scholars – Professors Robert G. Harris (Professor Emeritus and former Chair of the 

2:15-cv-11868-MOB-APP Doc # 1 Filed 05/22/15 Pg 56 of 120 Pg ID 56
REDACTED 

56 

Business and Public Policy Group at the Haas School of Business at the University of California 

at Berkeley) and the late Lawrence A. Sullivan (Professor of Law Emeritus at Southwestern Law 

School and author of the Handbook of the Law of Antitrust) – have observed that “in a multiplelevel chain of distribution, passing on monopoly overcharges is not the exception: it is the rule.”2

208. As Professor Jeffrey K. MacKie-Mason (Arthur W. Burks Professor for 

Information and Computer Science and Professor of Economics and Public Policy at the 

University of Michigan), an expert who presented evidence in a number of indirect purchaser 

cases involving Microsoft Corporation, said (in a passage quoted in the judicial decision in that 

case granting class certification):

As is well known in economic theory and practice, at least some of the overcharge 

will be passed on by distributors to end consumers. When the distribution markets 

are highly competitive, as they are here, all or nearly the entire overcharge will be 

passed on through to ultimate consumers...Both of Microsoft’s experts also agree 

upon the economic phenomenon of cost pass through, and how it works in 

competitive markets. This general phenomenon of cost pass through is well 

established in antitrust laws and economics as well.3

209. The purpose of the conspiratorial conduct of Defendants and their co-conspirators 

was to raise, fix, rig or stabilize the price of Spark Plugs, Standard Oxygen Sensors, and Air Fuel 

Ratio Sensors and, as a direct and foreseeable result, the price of new motor vehicles containing 

Spark Plugs, Standard Oxygen Sensors, and Air Fuel Ratio Sensors. 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 

 

2 Robert G. Harris & Lawrence A. Sullivan, Passing on the Monopoly Overcharge: A 

Comprehensive Policy Analysis, 128 U. PA. L. REV. 268, 275 (1979).

3 Order re: Class Certification at 13-14, Coordination Proceedings Special Title (Rule 

1550(b)) Microsoft I-V Cases, No. J.C.C.P. No. 4106, (Cal. Sup. Ct. Aug. 29, 2000).

2:15-cv-11868-MOB-APP Doc # 1 Filed 05/22/15 Pg 57 of 120 Pg ID 57
REDACTED 

57 

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 Spark Plugs, Standard Oxygen Sensors, and Air Fuel Ratio Sensors on 

prices for new motor vehicles even though such products contain a number of other components 

whose prices may be changing over time. A regression model can explain how variation in the 

price of Spark Plugs, Standard Oxygen Sensors, and Air Fuel Ratio Sensors affects changes in 

the price of new motor vehicles. In such models, the price of Spark Plugs, Standard Oxygen 

Sensors, and Air Fuel Ratio Sensors would be treated as an independent or explanatory variable. 

The model can isolate how changes in the price of Spark Plugs, Standard Oxygen Sensors, and 

Air Fuel Ratio Sensors impact the price of new motor vehicles containing Spark Plugs, Standard 

Oxygen Sensors, and Air Fuel Ratio Sensors while controlling for the impact of other pricedetermining factors. 

210. The precise amount of the overcharge impacting the prices of new motor vehicles 

containing Spark Plugs, Standard Oxygen Sensors, and Air Fuel Ratio Sensors 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 class members can be quantified. 

211. In addition to the regression analysis discussed above demonstrating impact on 

consumers, the Department of Justice’s Antitrust Division, which has been investigating this 

cartel for some time, has concluded that there is “no doubt” that consumers were hurt 

financially. Sharis A. Pozen, then Acting Assistant Attorney General in charge of the 

2:15-cv-11868-MOB-APP Doc # 1 Filed 05/22/15 Pg 58 of 120 Pg ID 58
REDACTED 

58 

Department of Justice’s Antitrust Division said: “By rigging bids . . . [automotive parts 

manufacturers engaged in a price-fixing conspiracy] inflated what some of their auto 

manufacturing clients paid, and indirectly, what consumers paid for some cars.” She also 

explained that “[a]s a result of this international price-fixing and bid-rigging conspiracy, 

automobile manufacturers paid noncompetitive and higher prices for parts in cars sold to U.S. 

consumers.” Ms. Pozen also stated that “[t]his cartel harmed an important industry in our 

nation’s economy, and the Antitrust Division with the Federal Bureau of Investigation will 

continue to work together to ensure that these kinds of conspiracies are stopped.” In a separate 

press statement, Ms. Pozen vowed to continue the investigation into “pernicious cartel conduct 

that results in higher prices to American consumers . . . .” 

212. On February 15, 2013, Scott Hammond, the Deputy Assistant Attorney General in 

the DOJ’s Antitrust Division, discussed the DOJ’s ongoing automotive parts investigation in a 

Thomson Reuters article. He said “[t]he investigation is broader than what we’ve announced so 

far . . . . [The investigation] is still very much ongoing, but it already appears to be the biggest 

criminal antitrust investigation that we’ve ever encountered. I say the biggest with respect to the 

impact on U.S. businesses and consumers, and the number of companies and executives that 

are subject to the investigation.” (emphasis added). 

213. On September 26, 2013, United States Attorney General Eric Holder in the 

Antitrust Division presented the DOJ’s then most recent findings in the ongoing automotive parts 

investigation. He stated “[t]hese international price fixing conspiracies affected more than $5 

billion in automobile parts sold to U.S. car manufacturers. In total, more than 25 million cars 

purchased by American consumers were affected by the illegal conduct.” Attorney General 

Holder also described how the conspiracies worked: “[c]ompany executives face to face in the 

2:15-cv-11868-MOB-APP Doc # 1 Filed 05/22/15 Pg 59 of 120 Pg ID 59
REDACTED 

59 

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. 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 automotive 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.” 

214. On May 25, 2014, news sources reported that Brent Snyder, a deputy assistant 

attorney general in the Antitrust Division, said with respect to the automotive parts conspiracies, 

“[i]t’s a very, very safe assumption that U.S. consumers paid more, and sometimes significantly 

more, for their automobiles as a result of this conspiracy.” 

215. By reason of the violations of the antitrust law alleged herein, Plaintiffs and the 

members of the Classes have sustained injury to their businesses or property, having paid higher 

prices for Spark Plugs, Standard Oxygen Sensors, and Air Fuel Ratio Sensors than they would 

have paid in the absence of the 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. 

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 Their Claims 

216. Plaintiffs repeat and re-allege the allegations set forth above. 

217. Plaintiffs and members of the Classes had no knowledge of the combination or 

conspiracy alleged herein, or of facts sufficient to place them on inquiry notice of the claims set 

forth herein, until (at the earliest) August 19, 2014, the date the DOJ announced NGK Spark 

2:15-cv-11868-MOB-APP Doc # 1 Filed 05/22/15 Pg 60 of 120 Pg ID 60
REDACTED 

60 

Plug Co., Ltd.’s anticipated guilty plea for its role in the criminal price-fixing conspiracy alleged 

herein.4

218. Plaintiffs and members of the Classes are consumers who purchased or leased 

vehicles or purchased Spark Plugs, Standard Oxygen Sensors, or Air Fuel Ratio Sensors to 

replace or repair damaged or defective Spark Plugs, Standard Oxygen Sensors, or Air Fuel Ratio 

Sensors in their vehicles. They had no direct contact or interaction with the Defendants and had 

no means from which they could have discovered the combination and conspiracy described in 

this Complaint before August 19, 2014, the date the DOJ announced NGK Spark Plug Co., Ltd.’s 

anticipated guilty plea for its role in the criminal price-fixing conspiracy alleged herein. 

219. No information in the public domain was available to Plaintiffs and members of 

the Classes prior to August 19, 2014, the date the DOJ announced NGK Spark Plug Co., Ltd.’s 

anticipated guilty plea for its role in the criminal price-fixing conspiracy alleged herein, that 

revealed sufficient information to suggest that the Defendants were involved in a criminal 

conspiracy to price-fix Spark Plugs, Standard Oxygen Sensors, and Air Fuel Ratio Sensors. 

Plaintiffs and members of the Classes had no means of obtaining any facts or information 

concerning any aspect of NGK’s dealings with OEMs or other direct purchasers, much less the 

 

4

 With respect to Defendants Robert Bosch GmbH and Robert Bosch LLC, Plaintiffs and members of the Classes 

had no knowledge of the combination or conspiracy alleged herein, or of facts sufficient to place them on inquiry 

notice of the claims set forth herein until (at the earliest), March 31, 2015, the date that the DOJ announced that 

Defendant Robert Bosch GmbH agreed to plead guilty to participating in the combination or conspiracy alleged 

herein. No information in the public domain was available to the Plaintiffs and the members of the Classes prior to 

March 31, 2015 that revealed sufficient information to suggest that the aforementioned Defendants were involved in 

the combination or conspiracy alleged herein. Therefore, the statute of limitations did not begin to run because 

Plaintiffs and members of the Classes did not and could not discover their claims, or in the alternative, because 

fraudulent concealment tolled the statute of limitations, until March 31, 2015 with respect to Defendants Robert 

Bosch GmbH and Robert Bosch LLC. 

2:15-cv-11868-MOB-APP Doc # 1 Filed 05/22/15 Pg 61 of 120 Pg ID 61
REDACTED 

61 

fact that they and their co-conspirators had engaged in the combination and conspiracy alleged 

herein. 

220. 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 

members of the Classes have alleged in this Complaint. 

B. Fraudulent Concealment Tolled the Statute of Limitations 

221. In the alternative, application of the doctrine of fraudulent concealment tolled the 

statute of limitations on the claims asserted herein by Plaintiffs and the Classes. Plaintiffs and 

members of the Classes did not discover, and could not discover through the exercise of 

reasonable diligence, the existence of the conspiracy alleged herein until August 19, 2014, the 

date the DOJ announced NGK Spark Plug Co., Ltd.’s anticipated guilty plea for its role in the 

criminal price-fixing conspiracy alleged herein.5

222. Before that time, Plaintiffs and members of the Classes were unaware of 

Defendants’ unlawful conduct, and did not know before then that they were paying supracompetitive prices for Spark Plugs, Standard Oxygen Sensors, and Air Fuel Ratio Sensors 

throughout the United States during the Class Period. No information, actual or constructive, was 

ever made available to Plaintiffs and members of the Classes that even hinted to Plaintiffs that 

they were being injured by NGK’s unlawful conduct. 

223. The affirmative acts of Defendants alleged herein, including acts in furtherance of 

the conspiracy, were wrongfully concealed and carried out in a manner that precluded detection. 

 

5 See Footnote 4. 

2:15-cv-11868-MOB-APP Doc # 1 Filed 05/22/15 Pg 62 of 120 Pg ID 62
REDACTED 

62 

224. Specifically, as Attorney General Holder explained in connection with the DOJ’s 

globally coordinated investigation into price-fixing in the Automotive parts industry, “[i]n order 

to keep their illegal conduct secret, [Defendants] used code names and met in remote locations.” 

225. A former executive of Defendant DENSO, Kazuaki Fujitani, pleaded guilty to a 

charge of obstruction of justice in which he admitted that he “corruptly destroyed and concealed 

records and documents by deleting numerous emails and electronic files from the period August 

1, 2009 to January 4, 2010” for a related automotive part. 

226. By its very nature, the Defendants’ anticompetitive conspiracy and unlawful 

combinations were inherently self-concealing. Spark Plugs, Standard Oxygen Sensors, and Air 

Fuel Ratio Sensors are not exempt from antitrust regulation and, thus, Plaintiffs and members of 

the Classes reasonably considered the Spark Plugs, Standard Oxygen Sensors, or Air Fuel Ratio 

Sensors industries to be a competitive industries. Defendants met and communicated in secret 

and agreed to keep the facts about their collusive conduct from being discovered by any member 

of the public or by the OEMs and other direct purchasers with whom they did business. 

Accordingly, a reasonable person under the circumstances would not have been alerted to begin 

to investigate the legitimacy of Defendants’ Spark Plugs, Standard Oxygen Sensors, or Air Fuel 

Ratio Sensors prices before August 19, 2014, the date the DOJ announced NGK Spark Plug Co., 

Ltd.’s anticipated guilty plea for its role in the criminal price-fixing conspiracy alleged herein. 

227. Plaintiffs and the members of the Classes could not have discovered the alleged 

combination or conspiracy 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 coconspirators to avoid detection of, and fraudulently conceal, their contract, combination, or 

conspiracy. 

2:15-cv-11868-MOB-APP Doc # 1 Filed 05/22/15 Pg 63 of 120 Pg ID 63
REDACTED 

63 

228. Throughout the course of the conspiracy, the Defendants met and communicated 

in secret to conceal their conspiracy from the public and avoid detection thereof. Above and 

beyond their acts in furtherance of the conspiracy, such as acts of bid rigging, Defendants 

engaged in surreptitious activity such as using code names and meeting at private residences or 

remote locations. The conspirators also coordinated their pricing in a manner to avoid detection 

by the OEMs. The exact dates and times of these meetings are within the knowledge of the 

Defendants, including those Defendants and executives of those Defendants who have pleaded 

guilty to criminal violations of the Sherman Act. 

229. Because the alleged conspiracy was both self-concealing and affirmatively 

concealed by Defendants and their co-conspirators, 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, until August 19, 2014, the 

date the DOJ announced NGK Spark Plug Co., Ltd.’s anticipated guilty plea for its role in the 

criminal price-fixing conspiracy alleged herein.. 

230. For these reasons, the statute of limitations applicable to Plaintiffs’ and the 

Classes’ claims was tolled and did not begin to run until August 19, 2014. 

FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF 

Violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act 

(on behalf of Plaintiffs and the Nationwide Class) 

231. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference the allegations in the preceding paragraphs. 

232. Defendants and unnamed co-conspirators entered into and engaged in a contract, 

combination, or conspiracy an unreasonable restraint of trade in violation of Section 1 of the 

Sherman Act (15 U.S.C. § 1). 

233. The acts done by the Defendants as part of, and in furtherance of, their and their 

co-conspirators’ contract, combination, or conspiracy were authorized, ordered, or done by their 

2:15-cv-11868-MOB-APP Doc # 1 Filed 05/22/15 Pg 64 of 120 Pg ID 64
REDACTED 

64 

officers, agents, employees, or representatives while actively engaged in the management of their 

affairs. 

234. During the Class Period, 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 Spark Plugs, Standard Oxygen Sensors, and Air Fuel Ratio 

Sensors, thereby creating anticompetitive effects. 

235. The anticompetitive acts were intentionally directed at the United States market 

for Spark Plugs, Standard Oxygen Sensors, and Air Fuel Ratio Sensors and had a substantial and 

foreseeable effect on interstate commerce by raising and fixing prices for these products 

throughout the United States. 

236. The conspiratorial acts and combinations have caused unreasonable restraints in 

the markets for Spark Plugs, Standard Oxygen Sensors, and Air Fuel Ratio Sensors. 

237. As a result of Defendants’ unlawful conduct, Plaintiffs and other similarly 

situated indirect purchasers in the Nationwide Class who purchased Spark Plugs, Standard 

Oxygen Sensors, and Air Fuel Ratio Sensors have been harmed by being forced to pay inflated, 

supra-competitive prices for these products. 

238. 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. 

239. Defendants conspiracy had the following effects, among others: 

2:15-cv-11868-MOB-APP Doc # 1 Filed 05/22/15 Pg 65 of 120 Pg ID 65
REDACTED 

65 

(a) Price competition in the market for Spark Plugs, Standard Oxygen Sensors, 

and Air Fuel Ratio Sensors has been restrained, suppressed, and/or eliminated in the 

United States; 

(b) Prices for Spark Plugs, Standard Oxygen Sensors, and Air Fuel Ratio Sensors 

sold by Defendants and their co-conspirators have been fixed, raised, maintained, 

and stabilized at artificially high, non-competitive levels throughout the United 

States; and 

(c) Plaintiffs and members of the Nationwide Class who purchased Spark Plugs, 

Standard Oxygen Sensors, and Air Fuel Ratio Sensors indirectly from Defendants 

and their co-conspirators have been deprived of the benefits of free and open 

competition. 

240. 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 Spark Plugs, Standard 

Oxygen Sensors, and Air Fuel Ratio Sensors purchased indirectly from Defendants and their coconspirators than they would have paid and will pay in the absence of the conspiracy. 

241. The alleged contract, combination, or conspiracy is a per se violation of the 

federal antitrust laws. 

242. 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) 

243. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference the allegations in the preceding paragraphs. 

244. During the Class Period, Defendants and their co-conspirators engaged in a 

continuing contract, combination or conspiracy with respect to the sale of Spark Plugs, Standard 

2:15-cv-11868-MOB-APP Doc # 1 Filed 05/22/15 Pg 66 of 120 Pg ID 66
REDACTED 

66 

Oxygen Sensors, and Air Fuel Ratio Sensors in unreasonable restraint of trade and commerce 

and in violation of the various state antitrust and other statutes set forth below. 

245. The contract, combination, or conspiracy consisted of an agreement among 

Defendants and their co-conspirators to fix, raise, inflate, stabilize, and/or maintain at artificially 

supra-competitive levels the prices for Spark Plugs, Standard Oxygen Sensors, and Air Fuel 

Ratio Sensors and to allocate customers for these products in the United States. 

246. In formulating and effectuating this conspiracy, the 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 Spark Plugs, Standard 

Oxygen Sensors, and Air Fuel Ratio Sensors 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 Spark Plugs, Standard Oxygen 

Sensors, and Air Fuel Ratio Sensors sold in the United States; 

(b) allocating customers and markets for Spark Plugs, Standard Oxygen Sensors, 

and Air Fuel Ratio Sensors 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. 

247. Defendants and their co-conspirators engaged in the actions described above for 

the purpose of carrying out their unlawful agreements to fix, maintain, increase, or stabilize 

2:15-cv-11868-MOB-APP Doc # 1 Filed 05/22/15 Pg 67 of 120 Pg ID 67
REDACTED 

67 

prices and to allocate customers with respect to Spark Plugs, Standard Oxygen Sensors, and Air 

Fuel Ratio Sensors. 

248. Defendants’ anticompetitive acts described above were knowing and willful and 

constitute violations or flagrant violations of the following state antitrust statutes. 

249. 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) 

Spark Plugs, Standard Oxygen Sensors, and Air Fuel Ratio Sensors price 

competition was restrained, suppressed, and eliminated throughout Arizona; (2) 

Spark Plugs, Standard Oxygen Sensors, and Air Fuel Ratio Sensors 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 Spark Plugs, Standard Oxygen Sensors, 

and Air Fuel Ratio Sensors. 

(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 

2:15-cv-11868-MOB-APP Doc # 1 Filed 05/22/15 Pg 68 of 120 Pg ID 68
REDACTED 

68 

and members of the Damages Class seek all forms of relief available under Ariz. 

Rev. Stat. §§ 44-1401, et seq.

250. 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, 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, 

Spark Plugs, Standard Oxygen Sensors, and Air Fuel Ratio Sensors 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, Spark Plugs, Standard Oxygen Sensors, and Air Fuel Ratio 

Sensors. 

(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 not limited to the acts, practices and course of 

conduct set forth above and the following: (1) Fixing, raising, stabilizing, and 

pegging the price of Spark Plugs, Standard Oxygen Sensors, and Air Fuel Ratio 

2:15-cv-11868-MOB-APP Doc # 1 Filed 05/22/15 Pg 69 of 120 Pg ID 69
REDACTED 

69 

Sensors; and (2) Allocating among themselves the production of Spark Plugs, 

Standard Oxygen Sensors, and Air Fuel Ratio Sensors. 

(d) The combination and conspiracy alleged herein has had, inter alia, the 

following effects: (1) Price competition in the sale of Spark Plugs, Standard 

Oxygen Sensors, and Air Fuel Ratio Sensors has been restrained, suppressed, 

and/or eliminated in the State of California; (2) Prices for Spark Plugs, Standard 

Oxygen Sensors, and Air Fuel Ratio Sensors sold by Defendants and their coconspirators have been fixed, raised, stabilized, and pegged at artificially high, 

non-competitive levels in the State of California and throughout the United States; 

and (3) Those who purchased Spark Plugs, Standard Oxygen Sensors, and Air 

Fuel Ratio Sensors directly or indirectly from Defendants and their coconspirators 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 Spark Plugs, Standard Oxygen Sensors, 

and Air Fuel Ratio Sensors 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. 

251. Defendants have entered into an unlawful agreement in restraint of trade in 

violation of the District of Columbia Code Annotated §§ 28-4501, et seq.

2:15-cv-11868-MOB-APP Doc # 1 Filed 05/22/15 Pg 70 of 120 Pg ID 70
REDACTED 

70 

(a) Defendants’ combinations or conspiracies had the following effects: (1) 

Spark Plugs, Standard Oxygen Sensors, and Air Fuel Ratio Sensors price 

competition was restrained, suppressed, and eliminated throughout the District of 

Columbia; (2) Spark Plug, Standard Oxygen Sensor, and Air Fuel Ratio Sensor 

prices were raised, fixed, maintained and stabilized at artificially high levels 

throughout the District of Columbia; (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 Spark 

Plugs, Standard Oxygen Sensors, and Air Fuel Ratio Sensors. 

(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.

252. The 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) 

Spark Plugs, Standard Oxygen Sensors, and Air Fuel Ratio Sensors price 

competition was restrained, suppressed, and eliminated throughout Iowa; (2) 

2:15-cv-11868-MOB-APP Doc # 1 Filed 05/22/15 Pg 71 of 120 Pg ID 71
REDACTED 

71 

Spark Plugs, Standard Oxygen Sensors, and Air Fuel Ratio Sensors 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 Spark Plugs, Standard Oxygen Sensors, 

and Air Fuel Ratio Sensors. 

(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. 

(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.

253. 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) 

Spark Plugs, Standard Oxygen Sensors, and Air Fuel Ratio Sensors price 

competition was restrained, suppressed, and eliminated throughout Kansas; (2) 

Spark Plugs, Standard Oxygen Sensors, and Air Fuel Ratio Sensors 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 

2:15-cv-11868-MOB-APP Doc # 1 Filed 05/22/15 Pg 72 of 120 Pg ID 72
REDACTED 

72 

and open competition; and (4) Plaintiffs and members of the Damages Class paid 

supra-competitive, artificially inflated prices for Spark Plugs, Standard Oxygen 

Sensors, and Air Fuel Ratio Sensors. 

(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.

254. 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. 

(a) Defendants’ combinations or conspiracies had the following effects: (1) 

Spark Plugs, Standard Oxygen Sensors, and Air Fuel Ratio Sensors price 

competition was restrained, suppressed, and eliminated throughout Maine; (2) 

Spark Plugs, Standard Oxygen Sensors, and Air Fuel Ratio Sensors 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 

supra-competitive, artificially inflated prices for Spark Plugs, Standard Oxygen 

Sensors, and Air Fuel Ratio Sensors. 

2:15-cv-11868-MOB-APP Doc # 1 Filed 05/22/15 Pg 73 of 120 Pg ID 73
REDACTED 

73 

(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.

255. 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) 

Spark Plugs, Standard Oxygen Sensors, and Air Fuel Ratio Sensors price 

competition was restrained, suppressed, and eliminated throughout Michigan; (2) 

Spark Plugs, Standard Oxygen Sensors, and Air Fuel Ratio Sensors 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 and members of the Damages Class paid 

supra-competitive, artificially inflated prices for Spark Plugs, Standard Oxygen 

Sensors, and Air Fuel Ratio Sensors. 

(b) During the Class Period, Defendants’ illegal conduct substantially affected 

Michigan commerce. 

2:15-cv-11868-MOB-APP Doc # 1 Filed 05/22/15 Pg 74 of 120 Pg ID 74
REDACTED 

74 

(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. 

256. Defendants have entered into an unlawful agreement in restraint of trade in 

violation of the Minnesota Annotated Statutes §§ 325D.49, et seq. 

(a) Defendants’ combinations or conspiracies had the following effects: (1) 

Spark Plugs, Standard Oxygen Sensors, and Air Fuel Ratio Sensors price 

competition was restrained, suppressed, and eliminated throughout Minnesota; (2) 

Spark Plugs, Standard Oxygen Sensors, and Air Fuel Ratio Sensors 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 supra-competitive, artificially inflated prices for Spark Plugs, Standard 

Oxygen Sensors, and Air Fuel Ratio Sensors. 

(b) During the Class Period, Defendants’ illegal conduct substantially affected 

Minnesota 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. 

2:15-cv-11868-MOB-APP Doc # 1 Filed 05/22/15 Pg 75 of 120 Pg ID 75
REDACTED 

75 

(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. 

257. 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) 

Spark Plugs, Standard Oxygen Sensors, and Air Fuel Ratio Sensors price 

competition was restrained, suppressed, and eliminated throughout Mississippi; 

(2) Spark Plugs, Standard Oxygen Sensors, and Air Fuel Ratio Sensors prices 

were raised, fixed, maintained and stabilized at artificially high levels throughout 

Mississippi; (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 Spark Plugs, Standard 

Oxygen Sensors, and Air Fuel Ratio Sensors. 

(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. 

(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.

2:15-cv-11868-MOB-APP Doc # 1 Filed 05/22/15 Pg 76 of 120 Pg ID 76
REDACTED 

76 

Accordingly, Plaintiffs and members of the Damages Class seek all relief 

available under Mississippi Code Ann. §§ 75-21-1, et seq.

258. 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) 

Spark Plugs, Standard Oxygen Sensors, and Air Fuel Ratio Sensors price 

competition was restrained, suppressed, and eliminated throughout Nebraska; (2) 

Spark Plugs, Standard Oxygen Sensors, and Air Fuel Ratio Sensors 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 

supra-competitive, artificially inflated prices for Spark Plugs, Standard Oxygen 

Sensors, and Air Fuel Ratio Sensors. 

(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.

2:15-cv-11868-MOB-APP Doc # 1 Filed 05/22/15 Pg 77 of 120 Pg ID 77
REDACTED 

77 

259. 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) 

Spark Plugs, Standard Oxygen Sensors, and Air Fuel Ratio Sensors price 

competition was restrained, suppressed, and eliminated throughout Nevada; (2) 

Spark Plugs, Standard Oxygen Sensors, and Air Fuel Ratio Sensors prices were 

raised, fixed, maintained and stabilized at artificially high levels throughout 

Nevada; (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 Spark Plugs, Standard Oxygen 

Sensors, and Air Fuel Ratio Sensors. 

(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.010, et seq.

Accordingly, Plaintiffs and members of the Damages Class seek all relief 

available under Nevada Rev. Stat. Ann. §§ 598A.010, et seq.

260. Defendants have entered into an unlawful agreement in restraint of trade in 

violation of the New Hampshire Revised Statutes §§ 356:1, et seq. 

2:15-cv-11868-MOB-APP Doc # 1 Filed 05/22/15 Pg 78 of 120 Pg ID 78
REDACTED 

78 

(a) Defendants’ combinations or conspiracies had the following effects: (1) 

Spark Plugs, Standard Oxygen Sensors, and Air Fuel Ratio Sensors price 

competition was restrained, suppressed, and eliminated throughout New 

Hampshire; (2) Spark Plugs, Standard Oxygen Sensors, and Air Fuel Ratio 

Sensors 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 supra-competitive, artificially inflated prices for Spark 

Plugs, Standard Oxygen Sensors, and Air Fuel Ratio Sensors. 

(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. 

261. 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) 

Spark Plugs, Standard Oxygen Sensors, and Air Fuel Ratio Sensors price 

competition was restrained, suppressed, and eliminated throughout New Mexico; 

2:15-cv-11868-MOB-APP Doc # 1 Filed 05/22/15 Pg 79 of 120 Pg ID 79
REDACTED 

79 

(2) Spark Plugs, Standard Oxygen Sensors, and Air Fuel Ratio Sensors 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 supra-competitive, artificially inflated prices for Spark Plugs, Standard 

Oxygen Sensors, and Air Fuel Ratio Sensors. 

(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. 

262. 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) 

Spark Plugs, Standard Oxygen Sensors, and Air Fuel Ratio Sensors price 

competition was restrained, suppressed, and eliminated throughout New York; (2) 

Spark Plugs, Standard Oxygen Sensors, and Air Fuel Ratio Sensors prices were 

raised, fixed, maintained and stabilized at artificially high levels throughout New 

York; (3) Plaintiffs and members of the Damages Class were deprived of free and 

2:15-cv-11868-MOB-APP Doc # 1 Filed 05/22/15 Pg 80 of 120 Pg ID 80
REDACTED 

80 

open competition; and (4) Plaintiffs and members of the Damages Class paid 

supra-competitive, artificially inflated prices for Spark Plugs, Standard Oxygen 

Sensors, and Air Fuel Ratio Sensors when they purchased vehicles containing 

Spark Plugs, Standard Oxygen Sensors, and Air Fuel Ratio Sensors, or purchased 

products that were otherwise of lower quality than they would have been absent 

the conspirators illegal acts, or were unable to purchase products that they 

otherwise would 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. 

263. 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) 

Spark Plugs, Standard Oxygen Sensors, and Air Fuel Ratio Sensors price 

competition was restrained, suppressed, and eliminated throughout North 

Carolina; (2) Spark Plugs, Standard Oxygen Sensors, and Air Fuel Ratio Sensors 

2:15-cv-11868-MOB-APP Doc # 1 Filed 05/22/15 Pg 81 of 120 Pg ID 81
REDACTED 

81 

prices were raised, fixed, maintained and stabilized at artificially high levels 

throughout North 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 supra-competitive, artificially inflated prices for Spark Plugs, 

Standard Oxygen Sensors, and Air Fuel Ratio Sensors. 

(b) During the Class Period, Defendants’ illegal conduct substantially affected 

North Carolina commerce. 

(c) As a direct and proximate result of the 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 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. 

264. 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) 

Spark Plugs, Standard Oxygen Sensors, and Air Fuel Ratio Sensors price 

competition was restrained, suppressed, and eliminated throughout North Dakota; 

(2) Spark Plugs, Standard Oxygen Sensors, and Air Fuel Ratio Sensors 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 

2:15-cv-11868-MOB-APP Doc # 1 Filed 05/22/15 Pg 82 of 120 Pg ID 82
REDACTED 

82 

paid supra-competitive, artificially inflated prices for Spark Plugs, Standard 

Oxygen Sensors, and Air Fuel Ratio Sensors. 

(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. 

265. 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) 

Spark Plugs, Standard Oxygen Sensors, and Air Fuel Ratio Sensors price 

competition was restrained, suppressed, and eliminated throughout Oregon; (2) 

Spark Plugs, Standard Oxygen Sensors, and Air Fuel Ratio Sensors 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 

supra-competitive, artificially inflated prices for Spark Plugs, Standard Oxygen 

Sensors, and Air Fuel Ratio Sensors. 

2:15-cv-11868-MOB-APP Doc # 1 Filed 05/22/15 Pg 83 of 120 Pg ID 83
REDACTED 

83 

(b) During the Class Period, Defendants’ illegal conduct had a substantial 

effect on Oregon 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 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. 

266. 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) 

Spark Plugs, Standard Oxygen Sensors, and Air Fuel Ratio Sensors price 

competition was restrained, suppressed, and eliminated throughout South Dakota; 

(2) Spark Plugs, Standard Oxygen Sensors, and Air Fuel Ratio Sensors prices 

were raised, fixed, maintained and stabilized at artificially high levels throughout 

South 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 supra-competitive, artificially inflated prices for Spark Plugs, Standard 

Oxygen Sensors, and Air Fuel Ratio Sensors. 

(b) During the Class Period, Defendants’ illegal conduct had a substantial 

effect on South Dakota commerce. 

2:15-cv-11868-MOB-APP Doc # 1 Filed 05/22/15 Pg 84 of 120 Pg ID 84
REDACTED 

84 

(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. 

267. 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) 

Spark Plugs, Standard Oxygen Sensors, and Air Fuel Ratio Sensors price 

competition was restrained, suppressed, and eliminated throughout Tennessee; (2) 

Spark Plugs, Standard Oxygen Sensors, and Air Fuel Ratio Sensors 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 supra-competitive, artificially inflated prices for Spark Plugs, Standard 

Oxygen Sensors, and Air Fuel Ratio Sensors. 

(b) During the Class Period, Defendants’ illegal conduct had a substantial 

effect on Tennessee commerce. 

(c) As a direct and proximate result of the Defendants’ unlawful conduct, 

Plaintiffs and members of the Damages Class have been injured in their business 

and property and are threatened with further injury. 

2:15-cv-11868-MOB-APP Doc # 1 Filed 05/22/15 Pg 85 of 120 Pg ID 85
REDACTED 

85 

(d) By reason of the foregoing, Defendants have entered into agreements in 

restraint of trade in violation of Tennessee Code Ann. §§ 47-25-101, et seq. 

Accordingly, Plaintiffs and members of the Damages Class seek all relief 

available under Tennessee Code Ann. §§ 47-25-101, et seq. 

268. Defendants have entered into an unlawful agreement in restraint of trade in 

violation of the Utah Code Annotated §§ 76-10-3101, et seq. 

(a) Defendants’ combinations or conspiracies had the following effects: (1) 

Spark Plugs, Standard Oxygen Sensors, and Air Fuel Ratio Sensors price 

competition was restrained, suppressed, and eliminated throughout Utah; (2) 

Spark Plugs, Standard Oxygen Sensors, and Air Fuel Ratio Sensors 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 Spark Plugs, Standard Oxygen Sensors, 

and Air Fuel Ratio Sensors. 

(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. 

2:15-cv-11868-MOB-APP Doc # 1 Filed 05/22/15 Pg 86 of 120 Pg ID 86
REDACTED 

86 

Accordingly, Plaintiffs and members of the Damages Class seek all relief 

available under Utah Code Annotated §§ 76-10-3101, et seq. 

269. Defendants have entered into an unlawful agreement in restraint of trade in 

violation of the Vermont Stat. Ann. 9 §§ 2453, et seq. 

(a) Defendants’ combinations or conspiracies had the following effects: (1) 

Spark Plugs, Standard Oxygen Sensors, and Air Fuel Ratio Sensors price 

competition was restrained, suppressed, and eliminated throughout Vermont; (2) 

Spark Plugs, Standard Oxygen Sensors, and Air Fuel Ratio Sensors 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 Spark Plugs, Standard Oxygen 

Sensors, and Air Fuel Ratio Sensors. 

(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 Vermont Stat. Ann. 9 §§ 2453, et seq. 

Accordingly, Plaintiffs and members of the Damages Class seek all relief 

available under Vermont Stat. Ann. 9 §§ 2453, et seq. 

2:15-cv-11868-MOB-APP Doc # 1 Filed 05/22/15 Pg 87 of 120 Pg ID 87
REDACTED 

87 

270. Defendants have entered into an unlawful agreement in restraint of trade in 

violation of the West Virginia Code §§ 47-18-1, et seq. 

(a) Defendants’ combinations or conspiracies had the following effects: (1) 

Spark Plugs, Standard Oxygen Sensors, and Air Fuel Ratio Sensors price 

competition was restrained, suppressed, and eliminated throughout West Virginia; 

(2) Spark Plugs, Standard Oxygen Sensors, and Air Fuel Ratio Sensors prices 

were raised, fixed, maintained and stabilized at artificially high levels throughout 

West Virginia; (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 Spark Plugs, Standard 

Oxygen Sensors, and Air Fuel Ratio Sensors. 

(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 Code §§ 47-18-1, et seq. 

Accordingly, Plaintiffs and members of the Damages Class seek all relief 

available under West Virginia Code §§ 47-18-1, et seq. 

271. Defendants have entered into an unlawful agreement in restraint of trade in 

violation of the Wisconsin Statutes §§ 133.01, et seq. 

2:15-cv-11868-MOB-APP Doc # 1 Filed 05/22/15 Pg 88 of 120 Pg ID 88
REDACTED 

88 

(a) Defendants’ combinations or conspiracies had the following effects: (1) 

Spark Plugs, Standard Oxygen Sensors, and Air Fuel Ratio Sensors price 

competition was restrained, suppressed, and eliminated throughout Wisconsin; (2) 

Spark Plugs, Standard Oxygen Sensors, and Air Fuel Ratio Sensors 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 supra-competitive, artificially inflated prices for Spark Plugs, Standard 

Oxygen Sensors, and Air Fuel Ratio Sensors. 

(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. 

272. 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 Spark Plugs, Standard Oxygen Sensors, and Air Fuel Ratio Sensors than they otherwise 

would have paid in the absence of Defendants’ unlawful conduct. This injury is of the type the 

2:15-cv-11868-MOB-APP Doc # 1 Filed 05/22/15 Pg 89 of 120 Pg ID 89
REDACTED 

89 

antitrust laws of the above states were designed to prevent and flows from that which makes 

Defendants’ conduct unlawful. 

273. 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. 

274. 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) 

275. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference the allegations in the preceding paragraphs. 

276. Defendants engaged in unfair competition or unfair, unconscionable, deceptive or 

fraudulent acts or practices in violation of the state consumer protection and unfair competition 

statutes listed below. 

277. Defendants have knowingly entered into an unlawful agreement in restraint of 

trade in violation of the Arkansas Code Annotated, § 4-88-101, et seq.

(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 Spark Plugs, Standard Oxygen 

Sensors, and Air Fuel Ratio Sensors were sold, distributed, or obtained in 

Arkansas and took efforts to conceal their agreements from Plaintiffs and 

members of the Damages Class. 

2:15-cv-11868-MOB-APP Doc # 1 Filed 05/22/15 Pg 90 of 120 Pg ID 90
REDACTED 

90 

(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) Spark Plug, 

Standard Oxygen Sensor, and Air Fuel Ratio Sensor price competition was 

restrained, suppressed, and eliminated throughout Arkansas; (2) Spark Plug, 

Standard Oxygen Sensor, and Air Fuel Ratio Sensor 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 Spark Plugs, Standard Oxygen Sensors, 

and Air Fuel Ratio Sensors. 

(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 Defendants, 

Plaintiff 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. 

2:15-cv-11868-MOB-APP Doc # 1 Filed 05/22/15 Pg 91 of 120 Pg ID 91
REDACTED 

91 

278. 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 Spark 

Plugs, Standard Oxygen Sensors, and Air Fuel Ratio Sensors Systems in 

California, and committed and continue to commit acts of unfair 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) 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. 

(c) 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; 

2:15-cv-11868-MOB-APP Doc # 1 Filed 05/22/15 Pg 92 of 120 Pg ID 92
REDACTED 

92 

(d) 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; 

(e) Defendants’ acts or practices are unfair to consumers of Spark Plugs, 

Standard Oxygen Sensors, and Air Fuel Ratio Sensors (or vehicles containing 

them) in the State of California within the meaning of Section 17200, California 

Business and Professions Code; 

(f) Defendants’ acts and practices are fraudulent or deceptive within the 

meaning of Section 17200 of the California Business and Professions Code. 

(g) Plaintiffs and members of the Damages Class are entitled to full 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 acts or 

practices. 

(h) The illegal conduct alleged herein is continuing and there is no indication 

that Defendants will not continue such activity into the future. 

(i) The unlawful and unfair business practices of Defendants, each of them, 

have caused and continue to cause Plaintiffs and the members of the Damages 

Class to pay supra-competitive and artificially-inflated prices for Spark Plugs, 

Standard Oxygen Sensors, and Air Fuel Ratio Sensors (or vehicles 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. 

2:15-cv-11868-MOB-APP Doc # 1 Filed 05/22/15 Pg 93 of 120 Pg ID 93
REDACTED 

93 

(j) The conduct of Defendants as alleged in this Complaint violates Section 

17200 of the California Business and Professions Code. 

(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. 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. 

279. Defendants have engaged in unfair competition or unfair, unconscionable, or 

deceptive acts or practices in violation of District of Columbia Code § 28-3901, 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 artificial and/or noncompetitive levels, the prices at which Spark Plugs, Standard Oxygen Sensors, 

and Air Fuel Ratio Sensors were sold, distributed or obtained in the District of 

Columbia. 

(b) The foregoing conduct constitutes “unlawful trade practices,” within the 

meaning of D.C. Code § 28-3904. Plaintiffs were not aware of Defendants’ pricefixing 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 Spark Plugs, 

Standard Oxygen Sensors, and Air Fuel Ratio Sensors Defendants had the sole 

power to set that price and Plaintiffs had no power to negotiate a lower price. 

2:15-cv-11868-MOB-APP Doc # 1 Filed 05/22/15 Pg 94 of 120 Pg ID 94
REDACTED 

94 

Moreover, Plaintiffs lacked any meaningful choice in purchasing Spark Plugs, 

Standard Oxygen Sensors, and Air Fuel Ratio Sensors because they were unaware 

of the unlawful overcharge and there was no alternative source of supply through 

which Plaintiffs could avoid the overcharges. Defendants’ conduct with regard to 

sales of Spark Plugs, Standard Oxygen Sensors, and Air Fuel Ratio Sensors, 

including their illegal conspiracy to secretly fix the price of Spark Plugs, Standard 

Oxygen Sensors, and Air Fuel Ratio Sensors at supra-competitive levels and 

overcharge consumers, was substantively unconscionable because it was onesided and unfairly benefited Defendants at the expense of Plaintiffs and the 

public. Defendants took grossly unfair advantage of Plaintiffs. The suppression of 

competition that has resulted from Defendants’ conspiracy has ultimately resulted 

in unconscionably higher prices for consumers so that there was a gross disparity 

between the price paid and the value received for Spark Plugs, Standard Oxygen 

Sensors, and Air Fuel Ratio Sensors. 

(c) Defendants’ unlawful conduct had the following effects: (1) Spark Plugs, 

Standard Oxygen Sensors, and Air Fuel Ratio Sensors price competition was 

restrained, suppressed, and eliminated throughout the District of Columbia; (2) 

Spark Plugs, Standard Oxygen Sensors, and Air Fuel Ratio Sensors prices were 

raised, fixed, maintained, and stabilized at artificially high levels throughout the 

District of Columbia; (3) Plaintiffs and the Damages Class were deprived of free 

and open competition; and (4) Plaintiffs and the Damages Class paid supracompetitive, artificially inflated prices for Spark Plugs, Standard Oxygen Sensors, 

and Air Fuel Ratio Sensors. 

2:15-cv-11868-MOB-APP Doc # 1 Filed 05/22/15 Pg 95 of 120 Pg ID 95
REDACTED 

95 

(d) As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ unlawful conduct, 

Plaintiffs and members of the Damages Class have been injured and are 

threatened with further injury. Defendants have engaged in unfair competition or 

unfair or deceptive acts or practices in violation of District of Columbia Code § 

28-3901, et seq., and, accordingly, Plaintiffs and members of the Damages Class 

seek all relief available under that statute. 

280. Defendants have engaged in unfair competition or 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) Spark Plugs, 

Standard Oxygen Sensors, and Air Fuel Ratio Sensors price competition was 

restrained, suppressed, and eliminated throughout Florida; (2) Spark Plugs, 

Standard Oxygen Sensors, and Air Fuel Ratio Sensors 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; and (4) Plaintiffs and members of the Damages Class paid supracompetitive, artificially inflated prices for Spark Plugs, Standard Oxygen Sensors, 

and Air Fuel Ratio Sensors. 

(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 and are 

threatened with further injury. 

2:15-cv-11868-MOB-APP Doc # 1 Filed 05/22/15 Pg 96 of 120 Pg ID 96
REDACTED 

96 

(d) Defendants have engaged in unfair competition or 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. 

281. Defendants have engaged in unfair competition or unfair, unconscionable, or 

deceptive acts or practices in violation of the Hawaii Revised Statutes Annotated §§ 480-1, et 

seq. 

(a) Defendants’ unlawful conduct had the following effects: (1) Spark Plugs, 

Standard Oxygen Sensors, and Air Fuel Ratio Sensors price competition was 

restrained, suppressed, and eliminated throughout Hawaii; (2) Spark Plugs, 

Standard Oxygen Sensors, and Air Fuel Ratio Sensors prices were raised, fixed, 

maintained, and stabilized at artificially high levels throughout Hawaii; (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 Spark Plugs, Standard Oxygen Sensors, 

and Air Fuel Ratio Sensors. 

(b) During the Class Period, Defendants’ illegal conduct substantially affected 

Hawaii commerce and consumers. 

(c) As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ unlawful conduct, 

Plaintiffs and members of the Damages Class have been injured and are 

threatened with further injury. 

(d) Defendants have engaged in unfair competition or unfair or deceptive acts 

or practices in violation of Hawaii Rev. Stat. § 480, et seq., and, accordingly, 

2:15-cv-11868-MOB-APP Doc # 1 Filed 05/22/15 Pg 97 of 120 Pg ID 97
REDACTED 

97 

Plaintiffs and members of the Damages Class seek all relief available under that 

statute. 

282. Defendants have engaged in unfair competition or unfair, unconscionable, or 

deceptive acts or practices in violation of Mass. G.L. c. 93A, §2. 

(a) Defendants were engaged in trade or commerce as defined by G.L. c. 

93A. 

(b) Defendants agreed to, and did in fact, act in restraint of trade or 

commerce in a market which includes Massachusetts, by affecting, fixing, 

controlling and/or maintaining at artificial and non-competitive levels, the prices 

at which Spark Plugs, Standard Oxygen Sensors, and Air Fuel Ratio Sensors 

were sold, distributed, or obtained in Massachusetts and took efforts to conceal 

their agreements from Plaintiffs and members of the Damages Class. 

(c) Defendants’ unlawful conduct had the following effects: (1) Spark Plugs, 

Standard Oxygen Sensors, and Air Fuel Ratio Sensors price competition was 

restrained, suppressed, and eliminated throughout Massachusetts; (2) Spark 

Plugs, Standard Oxygen Sensors, and Air Fuel Ratio Sensors prices were raised, 

fixed, maintained, and stabilized at artificially high levels throughout 

Massachusetts; (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 Spark Plugs, 

Standard Oxygen Sensors, and Air Fuel Ratio Sensors. 

2:15-cv-11868-MOB-APP Doc # 1 Filed 05/22/15 Pg 98 of 120 Pg ID 98
REDACTED 

98 

(d) As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ unlawful conduct, 

Plaintiffs and members of the Damages Class were injured and are threatened 

with further injury. 

(e) Certain of the Defendants have or will be served with a demand letter in 

accordance with G.L. c. 93A, § 9, or, upon information and belief, such service 

of a demand letter was unnecessary due to the defendant not maintaining a place 

of business within the Commonwealth of Massachusetts or not keeping assets 

within the Commonwealth. More than thirty days has passed since such demand 

letters were served, and each Defendant served has failed to make a reasonable 

settlement offer. 

(f) By reason of the foregoing, Defendants engaged in unfair competition 

and unfair or deceptive acts or practices, in violation of G.L. c. 93A, §2. 

Defendants’ and their co-conspirators’ violations of Chapter 93A were knowing 

or willful, entitling Plaintiffs and members of the Damages Class to multiple 

damages. 

283. Defendants have engaged in unfair competition or unfair, unconscionable, or 

deceptive acts or practices in violation of the Missouri Merchandising Practices Act, Mo. Rev. 

Stat. § 407.010, et. seq.

(a) Plaintiffs and the Damages Class purchased Spark Plugs, Standard 

Oxygen Sensors, and Air Fuel Ratio Sensors for personal, family, or household 

purposes. 

2:15-cv-11868-MOB-APP Doc # 1 Filed 05/22/15 Pg 99 of 120 Pg ID 99
REDACTED 

99 

(b) Defendants engaged in the conduct described herein in connection with 

the sale of Spark Plugs, Standard Oxygen Sensors, and Air Fuel Ratio Sensors in 

trade or commerce in a market that includes Missouri. 

(c) Defendants and their co-conspirators agreed to, and did in fact affect, fix, 

control, and/or maintain, at artificial and non-competitive levels, the prices at 

which Spark Plugs, Standard Oxygen Sensors, and Air Fuel Ratio Sensors were 

sold, distributed, or obtained in Missouri, which conduct constituted unfair 

practices in that it was unlawful under federal and state law, violated public 

policy, was unethical, oppressive and unscrupulous, and caused substantial injury 

to Plaintiffs and members of the Damages Class. 

(d) Defendants concealed, suppressed, and omitted to disclose material facts 

to Plaintiffs and members of the Damages Class concerning Defendants’ unlawful 

activities and artificially inflated prices for Spark Plugs, Standard Oxygen 

Sensors, and Air Fuel Ratio Sensors. The concealed, suppressed, and omitted 

facts would have been important to Plaintiffs and members of the Damages Class 

as they related to the cost of Spark Plugs, Standard Oxygen Sensors, and Air Fuel 

Ratio Sensors they purchased. 

(e) Defendants misrepresented the real cause of price increases and/or the 

absence of price reductions in Spark Plugs, Standard Oxygen Sensors, and Air 

Fuel Ratio Sensors by making public statements that were not in accord with the 

facts. 

(f) Defendants’ statements and conduct concerning the price of Spark Plugs, 

Standard Oxygen Sensors, and Air Fuel Ratio Sensors were deceptive as they had 

2:15-cv-11868-MOB-APP Doc # 1 Filed 05/22/15 Pg 100 of 120 Pg ID 100
REDACTED 

100 

the tendency or capacity to mislead Plaintiffs and members of the Damages Class 

to believe that they were purchasing Spark Plugs, Standard Oxygen Sensors, and 

Air Fuel Ratio Sensors at prices established by a free and fair market. 

(g) Defendants’ unlawful conduct had the following effects: (1) Spark Plugs, 

Standard Oxygen Sensors, and Air Fuel Ratio Sensors price competition was 

restrained, suppressed, and eliminated throughout Missouri; (2) Spark Plugs, 

Standard Oxygen Sensors, and Air Fuel Ratio Sensors prices were raised, fixed, 

maintained, and stabilized at artificially high levels throughout Missouri; (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 Spark Plugs, Standard Oxygen Sensors, 

and Air Fuel Ratio Sensors. 

(h) The foregoing acts and practices constituted unlawful practices in 

violation of the Missouri Merchandising Practices Act. 

(i) As a direct and proximate result of the above-described unlawful 

practices, Plaintiffs and members of the Damages Class suffered ascertainable 

loss of money or property. 

(j) Accordingly, Plaintiffs and members of the Damages Class seek all relief 

available under Missouri’s Merchandising Practices Act, specifically Mo. Rev. 

Stat. § 407.020, which prohibits “the act, use or employment by any person of any 

deception, fraud, false pretense, false promise, misrepresentation, unfair practice 

or the concealment, suppression, or omission of any material fact in connection 

with the sale or advertisement of any merchandise in trade or commerce...,” as 

2:15-cv-11868-MOB-APP Doc # 1 Filed 05/22/15 Pg 101 of 120 Pg ID 101
REDACTED 

101 

further interpreted by the Missouri Code of State Regulations, 15 CSR 60-7.010, 

et seq., 15 CSR 60-8.010, et seq., and 15 CSR 60-9.010, et seq., and Mo. Rev. 

Stat. § 407.025, which provides for the relief sought in this count. 

284. Defendants have engaged in unfair competition or unfair, unconscionable, or 

deceptive acts or practices in violation of the Montana Consumer Protection Act of 1973, Mont. 

Code, §§ 30-14-101, et seq. 

(a) Defendants’ unlawful conduct had the following effects: (1) Spark Plugs, 

Standard Oxygen Sensors, and Air Fuel Ratio Sensors price competition was 

restrained, suppressed, and eliminated throughout Montana; (2) Spark Plugs, 

Standard Oxygen Sensors, and Air Fuel Ratio Sensors prices were raised, fixed, 

maintained, and stabilized at artificially high levels throughout Montana; (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 Spark Plugs, Standard Oxygen Sensors, 

and Air Fuel Ratio Sensors. 

(b) During the Class Period, Defendants’ illegal conduct substantially affected 

Montana commerce and consumers. 

(c) As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ unlawful conduct, 

Plaintiffs and members of the Damages Class have been injured and are 

threatened with further injury. 

(d) Defendants have engaged in unfair competition or unfair or deceptive acts 

or practices in violation of Mont. Code, §§ 30-14-101, et seq., and, accordingly, 

2:15-cv-11868-MOB-APP Doc # 1 Filed 05/22/15 Pg 102 of 120 Pg ID 102
REDACTED 

102 

Plaintiffs and members of the Damages Class seek all relief available under that 

statute. 

285. 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 and their co-conspirators 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 Spark Plugs, 

Standard Oxygen Sensors, and Air Fuel Ratio Sensors were sold, distributed or 

obtained in New Mexico and took efforts to conceal their agreements from 

Plaintiffs and members of the Damages Class. 

(b) The aforementioned conduct on the part of Defendants constituted 

“unconscionable trade practices,” in violation of N.M.S.A. Stat. § 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 Spark Plugs, Standard Oxygen Sensors, and Air Fuel Ratio Sensors as set 

forth in N.M.S.A., § 57-12-2E. Plaintiffs were not aware of Defendants’ pricefixing 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 Spark Plugs, 

Standard Oxygen Sensors, and Air Fuel Ratio Sensors. 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 Spark Plugs, 

Standard Oxygen Sensors, and Air Fuel Ratio Sensors because they were unaware 

2:15-cv-11868-MOB-APP Doc # 1 Filed 05/22/15 Pg 103 of 120 Pg ID 103
REDACTED 

103 

of the unlawful overcharge and there was no alternative source of supply through 

which Plaintiffs’ could avoid the overcharges. Defendants’ conduct with regard to 

sales of Spark Plugs, Standard Oxygen Sensors, and Air Fuel Ratio Sensors, 

including their illegal conspiracy to secretly fix the price of Spark Plugs, Standard 

Oxygen Sensors, and Air Fuel Ratio Sensors at supra-competitive levels and 

overcharge consumers, was substantively unconscionable because it was onesided and unfairly benefited Defendants at the expense of Plaintiffs and the 

public. Defendants took grossly unfair advantage of Plaintiffs. The suppression of 

competition that has resulted from Defendants’ conspiracy has ultimately resulted 

in unconscionably higher prices for consumers so that there was a gross disparity 

between the price paid and the value received for Spark Plugs, Standard Oxygen 

Sensors, and Air Fuel Ratio Sensors. 

(c) Defendants’ unlawful conduct had the following effects: (1) Spark Plugs, 

Standard Oxygen Sensors, and Air Fuel Ratio Sensors price competition was 

restrained, suppressed, and eliminated throughout New Mexico; (2) Spark Plugs, 

Standard Oxygen Sensors, and Air Fuel Ratio Sensors 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 Spark Plugs, Standard Oxygen Sensors, 

and Air Fuel Ratio Sensors. 

(d) During the Class Period, Defendants’ illegal conduct substantially affected 

New Mexico commerce and consumers. 

2:15-cv-11868-MOB-APP Doc # 1 Filed 05/22/15 Pg 104 of 120 Pg ID 104
REDACTED 

104 

(e) As a direct and proximate result of the unlawful conduct of Defendants, 

Plaintiffs and the members of the Damages Class have been injured and are 

threatened with further injury. 

(f) 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. 

286. 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 agreed to, and did in fact, act in restraint of trade or commerce 

by affecting, fixing, controlling and/or maintaining, at artificial and noncompetitive levels, the prices at which Spark Plugs, Standard Oxygen Sensors, 

and Air Fuel Ratio Sensors 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 and their co-conspirators made public statements about the 

prices of Spark Plugs, Standard Oxygen Sensors, and Air Fuel Ratio Sensors and 

products containing Spark Plugs, Standard Oxygen Sensors, and Air Fuel Ratio 

Sensors that Defendants knew would be seen by New York consumers; such 

statements either omitted material information that rendered the statements that 

they made materially misleading or affirmatively misrepresented the real cause of 

price increases for Spark Plugs, Standard Oxygen Sensors, and Air Fuel Ratio 

Sensors and products containing Spark Plugs, Standard Oxygen Sensors, and Air 

2:15-cv-11868-MOB-APP Doc # 1 Filed 05/22/15 Pg 105 of 120 Pg ID 105
REDACTED 

105 

Fuel Ratio Sensors; and Defendants alone possessed material information that was 

relevant to consumers, but failed to provide the information. 

(c) Because of Defendants’ unlawful trade practices in the State of New York, 

New York consumer class members who indirectly purchased Spark Plugs, 

Standard Oxygen Sensors, and Air Fuel Ratio Sensors were misled to believe that 

they were paying a fair price for Spark Plugs, Standard Oxygen Sensors, and Air 

Fuel Ratio Sensors or the price increases for Spark Plugs, Standard Oxygen 

Sensors, and Air Fuel Ratio Sensors were for valid business reasons; and similarly 

situated consumers were potentially affected by Defendants’ conspiracy. 

(d) Defendants knew that their unlawful trade practices with respect to pricing 

Spark Plugs, Standard Oxygen Sensors, and Air Fuel Ratio Sensors would have 

an impact on New York consumers and not just the Defendants’ direct customers. 

(e) Defendants knew that their unlawful trade practices with respect to pricing 

Spark Plugs, Standard Oxygen Sensors, and Air Fuel Ratio Sensors would have a 

broad impact, causing consumer class members who indirectly purchased Spark 

Plugs, Standard Oxygen Sensors, and Air Fuel Ratio Sensors to be injured by 

paying more for Spark Plugs, Standard Oxygen Sensors, and Air Fuel Ratio 

Sensors than they would have paid in the absence of Defendants’ unlawful trade 

acts and practices. 

(f) The conduct of the Defendants described herein constitutes consumeroriented deceptive acts or practices within the meaning of N.Y. Gen. Bus. Law § 

349, which resulted in consumer injury and broad adverse impact on the public at 

2:15-cv-11868-MOB-APP Doc # 1 Filed 05/22/15 Pg 106 of 120 Pg ID 106
REDACTED 

106 

large, and harmed the public interest of New York State in an honest marketplace 

in which economic activity is conducted in a competitive manner. 

(g) Defendants’ unlawful conduct had the following effects: (1) Spark Plugs, 

Standard Oxygen Sensors, and Air Fuel Ratio Sensors price competition was 

restrained, suppressed, and eliminated throughout New York; (2) Spark Plugs, 

Standard Oxygen Sensors, and Air Fuel Ratio Sensors prices were raised, fixed, 

maintained, and stabilized at artificially high levels throughout New York; (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 Spark Plugs, Standard Oxygen Sensors, 

and Air Fuel Ratio Sensors. 

(h) During the Class Period, Defendants’ marketed, sold, or distributed Spark 

Plugs, Standard Oxygen Sensors, and Air Fuel Ratio Sensors in New York, and 

Defendants’ illegal conduct substantially affected New York commerce and 

consumers. 

(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 Spark Plugs, Standard Oxygen Sensors, and Air Fuel Ratio 

Sensors in New York. 

(j) Plaintiffs and members of the Damages Class seek all relief available 

pursuant to N.Y. Gen. Bus. Law § 349 (h). 

287. 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. 

2:15-cv-11868-MOB-APP Doc # 1 Filed 05/22/15 Pg 107 of 120 Pg ID 107
REDACTED 

107 

(a) Defendants agreed to, and did in fact, act in restraint of trade or commerce 

by affecting, fixing, controlling and/or maintaining, at artificial and noncompetitive levels, the prices at which Spark Plugs, Standard Oxygen Sensors, 

and Air Fuel Ratio Sensors were sold, distributed or obtained in North Carolina 

and took efforts to conceal their agreements from Plaintiffs and members of the 

Damages Class. 

(b) 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’ pricefixing conspiracy. Defendants committed inherently deceptive and self-concealing 

actions, of which Plaintiffs could not possibly have been aware. Defendants and 

their co-conspirators publicly provided pre-textual and false justifications 

regarding their price increases. Defendants’ public statements concerning the 

price of Spark Plugs, Standard Oxygen Sensors, and Air Fuel Ratio Sensors 

created the illusion of competitive pricing controlled by market forces rather than 

supra-competitive pricing driven by Defendants’ illegal conspiracy. Moreover, 

Defendants deceptively concealed their unlawful activities by mutually agreeing 

not to divulge the existence of the conspiracy to outsiders, conducting meetings 

and conversations in secret, confining the plan to a small group of higher-level 

officials at each company and avoiding the creation of documents which would 

reveal the antitrust violations. 

(c) The conduct of the Defendants described herein constitutes consumeroriented deceptive acts or practices within the meaning of North Carolina law, 

2:15-cv-11868-MOB-APP Doc # 1 Filed 05/22/15 Pg 108 of 120 Pg ID 108
REDACTED 

108 

which resulted in consumer injury and broad adverse impact on the public at 

large, and harmed the public interest of North Carolina consumers in an honest 

marketplace in which economic activity is conducted in a competitive manner. 

(d) Defendants’ unlawful conduct had the following effects: (1) Spark Plugs, 

Standard Oxygen Sensors, and Air Fuel Ratio Sensors price competition was 

restrained, suppressed, and eliminated throughout North Carolina; (2) Spark 

Plugs, Standard Oxygen Sensors, and Air Fuel Ratio Sensors prices were raised, 

fixed, maintained, and stabilized at artificially high levels throughout North 

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 

supra-competitive, artificially inflated prices for Spark Plugs, Standard Oxygen 

Sensors, and Air Fuel Ratio Sensors. 

(e) During the Class Period, Defendants’ marketed, sold, or distributed Spark 

Plugs, Standard Oxygen Sensors, and Air Fuel Ratio Sensors in North Carolina, 

and Defendants’ illegal conduct substantially affected North Carolina commerce 

and consumers. 

(f) 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 Spark Plugs, Standard Oxygen Sensors, and Air Fuel Ratio 

Sensors in North Carolina. 

(g) 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 

2:15-cv-11868-MOB-APP Doc # 1 Filed 05/22/15 Pg 109 of 120 Pg ID 109
REDACTED 

109 

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. 

288. Defendants have engaged in unfair competition or unfair, unconscionable, or 

deceptive acts or practices in violation of the Rhode Island Unfair Trade Practice and Consumer 

Protection Act, R.I. Gen. Laws §§ 6-13.1-1, et seq.

(a) Members of this Damages Class purchased Spark Plugs, Standard Oxygen 

Sensors, and Air Fuel Ratio Sensors for personal, family, or household purposes. 

(b) Defendants agreed to, and did in fact, act in restraint of trade or commerce 

in a market that includes Rhode Island, by affecting, fixing, controlling, and/or 

maintaining, at artificial and non-competitive levels, the prices at which Spark 

Plugs, Standard Oxygen Sensors, and Air Fuel Ratio Sensors were sold, 

distributed, or obtained in Rhode Island. 

(c) Defendants deliberately failed to disclose material facts to Plaintiffs and 

members of the Damages Class concerning Defendants’ unlawful activities and 

artificially inflated prices for Spark Plugs, Standard Oxygen Sensors, and Air Fuel 

Ratio Sensors. Defendants owed a duty to disclose such facts, and considering the 

relative lack of sophistication of the average, non-business consumer, Defendants 

breached that duty by their silence. Defendants misrepresented to all consumers 

during the Class Period that Defendants’ Spark Plugs, Standard Oxygen Sensors, 

and Air Fuel Ratio Sensors prices were competitive and fair. 

(d) Defendants’ unlawful conduct had the following effects: (1) Spark Plugs, 

Standard Oxygen Sensors, and Air Fuel Ratio Sensors price competition was 

2:15-cv-11868-MOB-APP Doc # 1 Filed 05/22/15 Pg 110 of 120 Pg ID 110
REDACTED 

110 

restrained, suppressed, and eliminated throughout Rhode Island; (2) Spark Plugs, 

Standard Oxygen Sensors, and Air Fuel Ratio Sensors prices were raised, fixed, 

maintained, and stabilized at artificially high levels throughout Rhode Island; (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 Spark Plugs, Standard Oxygen Sensors, 

and Air Fuel Ratio Sensors. 

(e) 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. 

(f) Defendants’ deception, including their affirmative misrepresentations and 

omissions concerning the price of Spark Plugs, Standard Oxygen Sensors, and Air 

Fuel Ratio Sensors, likely misled all consumers acting reasonably under the 

circumstances to believe that they were purchasing Spark Plugs, Standard Oxygen 

Sensors, and Air Fuel Ratio Sensors at prices set by a free and fair market. 

Defendants’ affirmative misrepresentations and omissions constitute information 

important to Plaintiffs and members of the Damages Class as they related to the 

cost of Spark Plugs, Standard Oxygen Sensors, and Air Fuel Ratio Sensors they 

purchased. 

(g) Defendants have engaged in unfair competition or unfair or deceptive acts 

or practices in violation of Rhode Island Gen. Laws. § 6-13.1-1, et seq., and, 

2:15-cv-11868-MOB-APP Doc # 1 Filed 05/22/15 Pg 111 of 120 Pg ID 111
REDACTED 

111 

accordingly, Plaintiffs and members of the Damages Class seek all relief available 

under that statute. 

289. Defendants have engaged in unfair competition or unfair, unconscionable, or 

deceptive acts or practices in violation of South Carolina Unfair Trade Practices Act, S.C. Code 

Ann. §§ 39-5-10, et seq.

(a) Defendants’ combinations or conspiracies had the following effects: (1) 

Spark Plugs, Standard Oxygen Sensors, and Air Fuel Ratio Sensors price 

competition was restrained, suppressed, and eliminated throughout South 

Carolina; (2) Spark Plugs, Standard Oxygen Sensors, and Air Fuel Ratio Sensors 

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 supra-competitive, artificially inflated prices for Spark 

Plugs, Standard Oxygen Sensors, and Air Fuel Ratio Sensors. 

(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. 

2:15-cv-11868-MOB-APP Doc # 1 Filed 05/22/15 Pg 112 of 120 Pg ID 112
REDACTED 

112 

290. Defendants have engaged in unfair competition or unfair, unconscionable, or 

deceptive acts or practices in violation of 9 Vermont § 2451, et seq.

(a) Defendants and their co-conspirators 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 Spark Plugs, Standard Oxygen Sensors, and Air Fuel Ratio 

Sensors were sold, distributed, or obtained in Vermont. 

(b) Defendants deliberately failed to disclose material facts to Plaintiffs and 

members of the Damages Class concerning their unlawful activities and 

artificially inflated prices for Spark Plugs, Standard Oxygen Sensors, and Air Fuel 

Ratio Sensors. Defendants owed a duty to disclose such facts, and considering the 

relative lack of sophistication of the average, non-business purchaser, Defendants 

breached that duty by their silence. Defendants misrepresented to all purchasers 

during the Class Period that their Spark Plug, Standard Oxygen Sensor, and Air 

Fuel Ratio Sensor prices were competitive and fair. 

(c) Defendants’ unlawful conduct had the following effects: (1) Spark Plugs, 

Standard Oxygen Sensors, and Air Fuel Ratio Sensors price competition was 

restrained, suppressed, and eliminated throughout Vermont; (2) Spark Plugs, 

Standard Oxygen Sensors, and Air Fuel Ratio Sensors 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 supra2:15-cv-11868-MOB-APP Doc # 1 Filed 05/22/15 Pg 113 of 120 Pg ID 113
REDACTED 

113 

competitive, artificially inflated prices for Spark Plugs, Standard Oxygen Sensors, 

and Air Fuel Ratio Sensors. 

(d) As a direct and proximate result of 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 the Defendants’ willful and deceptive conduct, as described herein. 

(e) Defendants’ deception, including their omissions concerning the price of 

Spark Plugs, Standard Oxygen Sensors, and Air Fuel Ratio Sensors, likely misled 

all purchasers acting reasonably under the circumstances to believe that they were 

purchasing Spark Plugs, Standard Oxygen Sensors, and Air Fuel Ratio Sensors at 

prices born by a free and fair market. Defendants’ misleading conduct and 

unconscionable activities constitutes 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. 

FOURTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF 

Unjust Enrichment 

(on behalf of Plaintiffs and the Damages Class) 

291. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference the allegations in the preceding paragraphs. 

292. Plaintiffs bring this claim under the laws of all states listed in the Second and 

Third Claims, supra. 

293. 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 Spark Plugs, Standard 

Oxygen Sensors, and Air Fuel Ratio Sensors. 

2:15-cv-11868-MOB-APP Doc # 1 Filed 05/22/15 Pg 114 of 120 Pg ID 114
REDACTED 

114 

294. 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 of the members of the Damages Class for Spark Plugs, 

Standard Oxygen Sensors, and Air Fuel Ratio Sensors. 

295. 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. 

296. Pursuit of any remedies against the firms from which Plaintiffs and the members 

of the Damages Class purchased vehicles containing Spark Plugs, Standard Oxygen Sensors, and 

Air Fuel Ratio Sensors subject to Defendants’ conspiracy would have been futile. 

PRAYER FOR RELIEF 

Accordingly, Plaintiffs respectfully request that: 

297. 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; 

298. That 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; 

2:15-cv-11868-MOB-APP Doc # 1 Filed 05/22/15 Pg 115 of 120 Pg ID 115
REDACTED 

115 

(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. 

299. 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; 

300. 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; 

301. 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; 

302. 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; 

2:15-cv-11868-MOB-APP Doc # 1 Filed 05/22/15 Pg 116 of 120 Pg ID 116
REDACTED 

116 

303. 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; 

304. Plaintiffs and the members of the Classes recover their costs of suit, including 

reasonable attorneys’ fees, as provided by law; and 

305. 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. 

DATED: May 22, 2015 THE MILLER LAW FIRM, P.C.

/s/ E. Powell Miller

E. Powell Miller (P39487) 

Adam T. Schnatz (P72049) 

950 W. University Dr., Ste. 300 

Rochester, Michigan 48307 

Telephone: (248) 841-2200 

Facsimile: (248) 652-2852 

epm@millerlawpc.com 

ats@millerlawpc.com 

Interim Liaison Counsel for End-Payor 

Plaintiffs 

Steven N. Williams 

Adam J. Zapala 

Elizabeth Tran

COTCHETT, PITRE & 

McCARTHY, LLP

San Francisco Airport Office Center 

840 Malcolm Road, Suite 200 

Burlingame, CA 94010

Telephone: (650) 697-6000 

Facsimile: (650) 697-0577 

fdamrell@cpmlegal.com 

swilliams@cpmlegal.com 

azapala@cpmlegal.com

etran@cpmlegal.com 

2:15-cv-11868-MOB-APP Doc # 1 Filed 05/22/15 Pg 117 of 120 Pg ID 117
REDACTED 

117 

Hollis Salzman 

Bernard Persky 

William V. Reiss 

ROBINS KAPLAN LLP 

601 Lexington Avenue, Suite 3400 

New York, NY 10022 

Telephone: (212) 980-7400 

Facsimile: (212) 980-7499 

HSalzman@RobinsKaplan.com 

BPersky@RobinsKaplan.com 

WReiss@RobinsKaplan.com 

Marc M. Seltzer 

Steven G. Sklaver 

SUSMAN GODFREY L.L.P. 

1901 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 950 

Los Angeles, CA 90067-6029

Telephone: (310) 789-3100 

Facsimile: (310) 789-3150 

mseltzer@susmangodfrey.com 

ssklaver@susmangodfrey.com 

Terrell W. Oxford 

SUSMAN GODFREY L.L.P. 

901 Main Street, Suite 5100 

Dallas, Texas 75202 

Telephone: (214) 754-1900 

Facsimile: (214)754-1933 

toxford@susmangodfrey.com 

Interim Co-Lead Class Counsel for End-Payor 

Plaintiffs 

2:15-cv-11868-MOB-APP Doc # 1 Filed 05/22/15 Pg 118 of 120 Pg ID 118
REDACTED 

118 

JURY DEMAND 

Plaintiffs demand a trial by jury, pursuant to Rule 38(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil 

Procedure, of all issues so triable. 

DATED: May 22, 2015 THE MILLER LAW FIRM, P.C.

/s/ E. Powell Miller

E. Powell Miller (P39487) 

Adam T. Schnatz (P72049) 

950 W. University Dr., Ste. 300 

Rochester, Michigan 48307 

Telephone: (248) 841-2200 

Facsimile: (248) 652-2852 

epm@millerlawpc.com 

ats@millerlawpc.com 

Interim Liaison Counsel for End-Payor 

Plaintiffs 

Steven N. Williams 

Adam J. Zapala 

Elizabeth Tran 

COTCHETT, PITRE & 

McCARTHY, LLP 

San Francisco Airport Office Center 

840 Malcolm Road, Suite 200 

Burlingame, CA 94010

Telephone: (650) 697-6000 

Facsimile: (650) 697-0577 

swilliams@cpmlegal.com 

azapala@cpmlegal.com 

etran@cpmlegal.com 

2:15-cv-11868-MOB-APP Doc # 1 Filed 05/22/15 Pg 119 of 120 Pg ID 119
REDACTED 

119 

Hollis Salzman 

Bernard Persky 

William V. Reiss 

ROBINS KAPLAN LLP 

601 Lexington Avenue, Suite 3400 

New York, NY 10022 

Telephone: (212) 980-7400 

Facsimile: (212) 980-7499 

HSalzman@RobinsKaplan.com 

BPersky@RobinsKaplan.com 

WReiss@RobinsKaplan.com 

Marc M. Seltzer 

Steven G. Sklaver 

SUSMAN GODFREY L.L.P. 

1901 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 950 

Los Angeles, CA 90067-6029

Telephone: (310) 789-3100 

Facsimile: (310) 789-3150 

mseltzer@susmangodfrey.com 

ssklaver@susmangodfrey.com 

Terrell W. Oxford 

SUSMAN GODFREY L.L.P. 

901 Main Street, Suite 5100 

Dallas, Texas 75202 

Telephone: (214) 754-1900 

Facsimile: (214)754-1933 

toxford@susmangodfrey.com 

Interim Co-Lead Class Counsel for End-Payor 

Plaintiff Class

2:15-cv-11868-MOB-APP Doc # 1 Filed 05/22/15 Pg 120 of 120 Pg ID 120