Personal Injury Firms Allege Price-Fixing Conspiracy in TV Ads
Six separate lawsuits have been filed since The Wall Street Journal reported last month that the Justice Department was investigating whether media sales teams and station owners shared information with one another.
August 23, 2018 at 07:33 PM
4 minute read
Four personal injury law firms and two other businesses have filed class actions alleging the nation's largest broadcasters have conspired to fix prices on TV advertising.
The four law firms, along with an automobile dealership in Pennsylvania and a marketing consultant in Alabama, filed six separate lawsuits after The Wall Street Journal reported last month that the Justice Department was investigating whether sales teams at Tribune Media Co., Sinclair Broadcast Group Inc. and other independent TV station owners shared information with one another. Tribune and Sinclair had planned a $3.9 billion merger, but the Federal Communications Commission raised concerns about the deal. This month, Tribune filed a $1 billion suit against Sinclair over the botched merger.
The plaintiff law firms are Clay, Massey & Associates and the Ford Firm, both in Alabama; the Dozier Law Firm in Georgia; and the Law Offices of Peter Miller in Arkansas. The suits named Tribune, Sinclair, Hearst Corp. and three other broadcast companies.
“During the class period, defendants unlawfully shared information and coordinated efforts to artificially inflate prices for television commercials,” wrote Hollis Salzman at Robins Kaplan, in the suit brought by Clay, Massey & Associates. “Specifically, instead of competing with each other on prices for advertising sales, as competitors normally do, defendants and their co-conspirators shared proprietary information and conspired to fix prices and reduce competition in the market.”
Salzman, a New York partner, filed a July 31 motion before the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation to coordinate all the TV advertising cases in Illinois, where four are pending and where Tribune is based. The other defendants are Gray Television Inc., Nexstar Media Group Inc. and Gannett spinoff TEGNA Inc. In June, Gray agreed to merge with Raycom Media Inc. for $3.65 billion.
In filings this week, the Dozier Law Firm, based in Macon, Georgia, and the defendants, supported an MDL, but the Law Offices of Peter Miller, in Little Rock, Arkansas, pushed for Maryland, where two suits are pending and where Sinclair has its headquarters in Hunt Valley.
The panel has scheduled the cases for its Sept. 27 hearing in San Francisco.
The suits all claim that advertising sales teams for independent local TV station owners, faced with anticipated merger challenges and declines in TV ad purchases, coordinated with one another to inflate prices in violation of the Sherman Antitrust Act. As evidence of the conspiracy, the suits cite the DOJ investigation and the defendants' participation in various trade associations.
The suits were brought on behalf of a nationwide class of ad buyers since 2014.
Salzman and R. Edward Massey, of Clay Massey & Associates in Mobile, Alabama, did not respond to a request for comment. Peter Miller referred calls to his attorneys at Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check in Radnor, Pennsylvania, who didn't respond. Ken Wexler, managing partner at Chicago's Wexler Wallace, who represented the Dozier Law Firm, declined to comment.
Randal Ford, in Tuscaloosa, Alabama, referred a call to his lawyer, Megan Jones at Hausfeld, who wrote: “Businesses should compete for customers, not share competitively sensitive information to the disadvantage of their customers. Our complaint alleges that defendants shared such information, rather than go head to head and compete for customers. As a result, advertisers were harmed and our complaint seeks a remedy for that.”
A spokesman for Tribune, represented by Jay Cohen at New York's Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison, declined to comment. Other defense attorneys—Jerome Fortinsky at New York's Shearman & Sterling for Sinclair, Eliot Adelson at Kirkland & Ellis in San Francisco for Nexstar, Evan Chesler at New York's Cravath, Swaine & Moore for Hearst, Ross Bricker of Jenner & Block in Chicago for TEGNA, and Cooley's Mazda Antia, a partner in San Diego, for Gray Television—did not respond to requests for comment.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllJudges’ ‘Unretirements’ After Trump's Win Spark Dubious Ethics Complaints
‘Badge of Honor’: SEC Targets CyberKongz in Token Registration Dispute
3 minute read‘BiT Global Lost’: Federal Judge Won’t Stop Coinbase From Delisting wBTC Token
3 minute readState High Court Bucks Trend Favoring Insurers, Sides With Restaurants Seeking COVID-19 Coverage
Trending Stories
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250