Goodyear, other tire makers slam 'far fetched' price-fixing lawsuits
Refiles Sept. 23 story to fix a typo in the headline
By Mike Scarcella
Sept 23 (Reuters) -Goodyear, Bridgestone and four other tire manufacturers have asked a U.S. judge to dismiss a trio of class action lawsuits accusing them of conspiring to overcharge consumers and businesses in the multibillion-dollar market for replacement tires.
The companies, also including Continental, Michelin, Nokian and Pirelli, said in an Ohio court filing on Friday that the lawsuits failed to provide any evidence that they agreed to fix tire prices for passenger cars, trucks and other vehicles.
The antitrust cases from consumers, automobile dealerships and other purchasers were assigned in June to the federal court in Akron, Ohio.
The plaintiffs’ claims were first lodged in February on the heels of a European Commission antitrust probe of some tire makers in Europe. The commission is the antitrust enforcer in the 27-country European Union.
Lawyers for the plaintiffs and spokespeople for Continental, Michelin, Nokian, Goodyear, Pirelli and Bridgestone either had no immediate comment or did not immediately respond to requests for one.
The lawsuits estimated sales last year for replacement tires reached $57 billion in the United States.
The plaintiffs contend the alleged conspiracy drove up the average price of replacement tires in the United States by 21.4% between 2021 and 2023. The lawsuits seek class-action status for buyers from early 2020 to the present.
The tire makers in their joint court filing called the claims "far-fetched" and said the plaintiffs had attempted to “create a conspiracy out of thin air” with no evidence substantiating the lawsuits. They said their pricing decisions reflected “rational and competitive behavior in a concentrated market.”
The companies said the existence of the European Commission probe was "insufficient, as a matter of law, to infer an unlawful agreement under U.S. federal and state law.”
Chief Judge Sara Lioi in the Northern District of Ohio was assigned in June to hear the cases.
The case is In Re: Passenger Vehicle Replacement Tires Antitrust Litigation, U.S. District Court, Northern District of Ohio, No. 5:24-md-03107-SL.
Read more:
EU antitrust regulators raid consultancy in tyre cartel investigation
Top tire makers are sued in US over alleged price fixing
Reporting by Mike Scarcella
Related Assets
Latest News
Disclaimer: The XM Group entities provide execution-only service and access to our Online Trading Facility, permitting a person to view and/or use the content available on or via the website, is not intended to change or expand on this, nor does it change or expand on this. Such access and use are always subject to: (i) Terms and Conditions; (ii) Risk Warnings; and (iii) Full Disclaimer. Such content is therefore provided as no more than general information. Particularly, please be aware that the contents of our Online Trading Facility are neither a solicitation, nor an offer to enter any transactions on the financial markets. Trading on any financial market involves a significant level of risk to your capital.
All material published on our Online Trading Facility is intended for educational/informational purposes only, and does not contain – nor should it be considered as containing – financial, investment tax or trading advice and recommendations; or a record of our trading prices; or an offer of, or solicitation for, a transaction in any financial instruments; or unsolicited financial promotions to you.
Any third-party content, as well as content prepared by XM, such as: opinions, news, research, analyses, prices and other information or links to third-party sites contained on this website are provided on an “as-is” basis, as general market commentary, and do not constitute investment advice. To the extent that any content is construed as investment research, you must note and accept that the content was not intended to and has not been prepared in accordance with legal requirements designed to promote the independence of investment research and as such, it would be considered as marketing communication under the relevant laws and regulations. Please ensure that you have read and understood our Notification on Non-Independent Investment. Research and Risk Warning concerning the foregoing information, which can be accessed here.
