CRT Antitrust Lawsuit: Electronics Giants Accused of Price-Fixing

Case Overview: A class action lawsuit accuses major electronics companies of conspiring to fix prices on cathode ray tubes (CRTs), harming consumers.

Consumers Affected: Consumers in Minnesota who purchased CRT products from the defendant companies. 

Court: U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota

A new lawsuit has taken aim at 18 electronics companies, including industry heavyweights LG, Panasonic, Philips, and Samsung, accusing them of conspiring to fix prices on cathode-ray tubes (CRTs). 

Once a cornerstone of TVs and computer monitors, CRTs were allegedly sold at artificially inflated prices thanks to a decades-long price-fixing scheme, according to the lawsuit. The lawsuit claims the companies colluded through secret meetings and agreements to control production, allocate markets, and set artificially high prices, all while misleading consumers about the true cost of the products. The lawsuit argues this covert cartel defrauded millions of customers and distorted market competition during CRT technology’s twilight years.

Consumers Paid Inflated Prices for CRT Products, Lawsuit Claims

The class action lawsuit was filed by Minnesota residents Barry Kushner and Alan Rotman, who say they unknowingly paid inflated prices for CRT products during the alleged conspiracy. According to the lawsuit, the scheme was so well-hidden that consumers could not have reasonably suspected collusion until antitrust investigations began in 2007. Authorities in the U.S., Europe, and Asia conducted raids and issued subpoenas, uncovering widespread price-fixing practices among CRT manufacturers.

The plaintiffs argue that they and others in the class were financially harmed, paying more than they should have for products such as televisions and computer monitors. Their claims rest on evidence of secret agreements between the defendants, which included meetings to set prices and control market shares, according to the lawsuit.

Electronics Companies Accused of Conspiring to Fix CRT Prices

CRTs were the dominant display technology throughout the 1990s, but demand began to decline as flat-panel displays grew in popularity. Despite falling demand, CRT prices remained unusually high during this period. The lawsuit alleges that manufacturers conspired to stabilize or even increase CRT prices, defying typical market trends. By doing so, they avoided the downward price pressures that new technologies would typically create, the lawsuit claims.

The companies allegedly leveraged their dominance in the CRT market while also competing in the burgeoning flat-panel market, ensuring profits from both sectors. This collusion is said to have included price-setting agreements, customer allocation, and coordinated pricing announcements. Together, these practices undermined competition and forced consumers to pay artificially high prices, the lawsuit alleges.

Other Industries Face Antitrust Lawsuits Over Price-Fixing

The CRT lawsuit is the latest in a series of high-profile antitrust cases targeting corporate collusion. Similar allegations have emerged in industries ranging from pharmaceuticals to agriculture. GoodRx and other pharmacy benefit managers were also hit with claims of suppressing reimbursement rates for independent pharmacies, while major potato processor and tire manufacturers are battling lawsuits over alleged price-fixing schemes.

Such cases underscore growing concerns about the impact of corporate consolidation on competition. Critics argue that unchecked collusion harms consumers and small businesses while enriching powerful industry players. For now, the CRT lawsuit serves as a stark reminder of how hidden agreements can shape—and distort—the prices consumers pay every day.

In their lawsuit against the electronics companies, Kushner and Rotman want to represent anyone in Minnesota that bought the defendants’ CRT products from May 1, 1990 to present. They are suing for unjust enrichment and violation of the Minnesota Antitrust Act and are seeking damages, enjoinment, costs, fees, and interest.

Case Details

• Lawsuit: Kushner, et al. v. Chunghwa Picture Tubes, Ltd., et al.
• Case Number: 3:24-cv-09118-VC 
• Court: U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota 

Plaintiffs' Attorneys

• Karl L. Cambronne and Jeffrey D. Bores (Chestnut & Cambronne, P.A.)
• Daniel R. Karon (Goldman Scarlato & Karon, P.C.)

Did you purchase a TV or computer monitor with a CRT during the alleged price-fixing period? Share your thoughts on this lawsuit in the comments below.