Contact:
800 Fifth Avenue
Suite 2000
Seattle, WA 98104
E-mail
The Antitrust Division is comprised of four attorneys and five professional staff. The division enforces state and federal antitrust laws, protecting consumers and businesses from anticompetitive practices such as price-fixing, bid rigging, monopolization, and other conduct that interferes with fair competition.
[Back to Top]
The majority of the division’s work focuses on representing consumers and state agencies in litigation seeking redress for violations of antitrust laws. Upon request the division provides legal counsel to, and training for, state agencies concerning antitrust-related matters. Staff also evaluate and respond to antitrust complaints and inquiries.
[Back to Top]
FirstGroup and Laidlaw School Bus Merger Settlement: Washington and a group of states, along with the Department of Justice, reviewed the proposed merger of FirstGroup and Laidlaw, the two largest school bus operators in the country. After completing the review, Washington and the parties entered into a consent decree designed to preserve competition, and required, among other things, the sale of school bus contracts with the Seattle, Rochester, Battle Ground, and Hockinson school districts to competing school bus companies.
DRAM: Washington and other states have sued major manufacturers of Dynamic Random Access Memory (DRAM), alleging that the manufacturers engaged in price-fixing. Several of the defendants pled guilty to federal criminal charges, however no consumer relief was provided in the criminal case. Washington is seeking recovery of damages for state agencies and restitution for consumers. The case is filed in federal court in California. Discovery is ongoing. Settlements have been reached with two of the defendants. Samsung has agreed to pay $90 million to settle the case and Winbond has agreed to pay $2 million. A decision regarding how the money will be distributed will be made after a trial or settlement with the remaining defendants.
Enron: Enron was among several energy companies investigated after the energy crisis of 2000-2001. Enron entered into a monetary settlement with Washington and other states, in which it agreed to pay restitution to injured consumers. To date, the total amount paid by the Enron Bankruptcy Estate to Washington is approximately $6.6 million. The money from the settlement will be distributed through local utilities to be used for low-income energy assistance and weatherization programs for residential customers.
Remeron: This multistate case and settlement was based on claims that Organon USA Inc. unlawfully maintained its monopoly for mirtazapine, the active ingredient in Remeron, a popular brand-name antidepressant drug. As part of the multistate settlement, Washington received approximately $88,000 for its Medicaid program. Additionally, 1,014 consumers received checks totaling about $166,000 (approx. $163 each.)
Legislation: The 2007 legislature passed a law confirming that the Attorney General may bring a price-fixing suit under state antitrust laws on behalf of injured consumers even if the consumers did not purchase the affected products directly from the price-fixer. This law mirrors legislation in the majority of other states. The law also clarifies the Attorney General’s authority to bring lawsuits on behalf of the residents of the state.
Antitrust Modernization Commission: Attorney General McKenna filed comments and testified before the federal Antitrust Modernization Commission, recommending that regulated industries should be subject to enforcement by both the applicable regulatory agencies and antitrust enforcers as the best means of preventing marketplace abuses. This recommendation was well received by the Commission, which incorporated most of the recommendations in its final report to Congress.
Leegin Amicus: In Leegin Creative Leather Products, Inc. v. PSKS, Inc., Washington and 36 other states joined in a U.S. Supreme Court amicus brief, arguing that the law preventing manufacturers and their dealers from fixing retail prices should be maintained. The States argued that changing the case law would effectively eliminate price competition among dealers, causing direct harm to consumers in the form of higher prices and that there is no evidence of any procompetitive benefits of the practice. The States also argued that the decision has been well-settled for over 90 years, has never been overruled by Congress, and therefore is entitled to substantial deference.
DDVAP Antitrust Litigation Amicus: This private case claimed that a brand name drug manufacturer illegally obtained a patent, thus thwarting generic entry. Washington and other states filed a “friend of the court” brief in the Second Circuit Court of Appeals that urges the appellate court to find that consumers of the patented drug can assert an antitrust claim for monetary relief based on allegations that the drug’s patent was invalid because it was fraudulently obtained. The lower court had held that only competitors, such as manufacturers of generic versions of DDAVP who have been or might be sued for infringement of the drug patent, would have standing to bring such a claim.
Franciscan Health/Enumclaw Hospital: This acquisition was reviewed for potential anticompetitive impact. It was determined that enforcement action was not necessary.
[Back to Top]