Cases | Washington State

Current Cases in Litigation

Past Cases

Current Cases

RealPage Price Fixing, Conspiracy, and Unfair Methods of Competition Litigation (filed 2025)

In April 2025, Washington filed suit in King County Superior Court against RealPage, Inc., a pricing software provider, and nine Washington landlords—Greystar, Pinnacle, LivCor, UDR, Prime Administration, Sares Regis, MG Properties, LaSalle, and Quarterra. The complaint alleges a conspiracy among the landlords, organized by RealPage to use algorithmic pricing software to raise, stabilize rental property prices and reduce occupancy; a conspiracy to align pricing strategy; an information exchange conspiracy; and unfair methods of competition in sharing a pricing algorithm all of which violate the Washington Consumer Protection Act. Washington has commenced discovery and has a trial date set for October 2027.

Apple Monopolization (filed 2024)

In June 2024, our office joined the U.S. Department of Justice and a bipartisan group of 20 attorneys general in an antitrust lawsuit against Apple for monopolizing the smartphone market and by restricting how developers and business can use the iPhone, stifling innovation and keeping prices artificially high. The lawsuit alleges that Apple is able to harm consumers in a wide variety of ways beyond the purchase of a smartphone. For example, by denying iPhone users the ability to choose their trusted banking apps as their digital wallet, Apple retains full control both over the individual and also over the income generated by forcing users to use only Apple-authorized products in the digital wallet. Apple also prohibits the creation and use of alternative app stores that can be curated to reflect a consumer’s preferences with respect to security, privacy, or other values. These and many other features would be beneficial to consumers and empower them to make choices about what smartphone to buy and what apps and products to patronize. Allowing consumers to make that choice is an obstacle to Apple’s ability to maintain its monopoly, according to the lawsuit. In June 2025, a New Jersey federal district court judge denied Apple's motion to dismiss this lawsuit .

Live Nation/Ticketmaster Monopolization (filed 2024)

In February 2024, our office joined the U.S. Department of Justice and a bipartisan group of 29 other attorneys general in an antitrust lawsuit against Live Nation and its subsidiary Ticketmaster. The lawsuit alleges violations of Section 2 of the Sherman Act, specifically monopolization and other anticompetitive conduct that harms consumers by increasing ticket prices, depriving consumers of ticketing innovation, and imposing barriers to the industry to limit competition in ticketing.

In addition to monopolization, the lawsuit alleges that Live Nation and Ticketmaster exploit their relationship with Oak View Group to prevent it from acting as a competitor; threaten potential competitors who seek to enter the concert promotions market; threaten and retaliate against venues that work with competitors; require exclusionary contracts with venues so that they cannot work with other ticketers; restrict artists' access to venues through acquisitions, partnerships, or agreements; and have engaged in the serial acquisition of competitors, including smaller and regional promoters.

Litigation is ongoing in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York.

Kroger/Albertsons Merger Litigation (filed 2024)

In January 2024, Washington sued in Washington State Court to enjoin the proposed merger between The Kroger Co. and Albertsons Companies, Inc. After a three-week trial in September, our office prevailed in all aspects of the case. Kroger and Albertsons are the two largest supermarket chains in Washington, and collectively own over 300 supermarkets in Washington, which is more than half of all supermarkets in the State. Albertsons owns Albertsons, Safeway, and Haggen stores, and Kroger owns QFC and Fred Meyer stores. The State argued that the proposed merger was likely to substantially lessen competition, and that Kroger and Albertsons’ proposed fix, a divestiture of assets to C&S Wholesale Grocers, was an inadequate remedy.

On December 10, 2024, King County Superior Court Judge Marshall Ferguson ruled that the proposed merger was unlawful under Washington law, permanently enjoined the merger, and awarded the State attorneys' fees and costs. The same day as Judge Ferguson's decision, the U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon preliminarily enjoined the proposed merger while the Federal Trade Commission presented its case in an administrative proceeding. As a result of these two decisions, Kroger and Albertsons abandoned the proposed merger.

In August 2025 the State was awarded over $28.3M in attorneys' fees and costs.

Kroger and Albertsons have appealed Judge Ferguson’s decision, and the appeal is ongoing. For more information, please visit https://www.atg.wa.gov/news/news-releases/judge-blocks-kroger-albertsons-merger-following-ag-ferguson-challenge.

Google Ad Tech Monopolization Litigation (filed 2023)

In April 2023, our office joined the U.S. Department of Justice and a bipartisan group of sixteen other attorneys’ general in a lawsuit against Google LLC (“Google”) for maintaining an unlawful monopoly of online display advertising (“ad tech”). The lawsuit alleges that Google’s monopolization of advertising causes website creators to earn less and advertisers to pay more than they would in a competitive market, and suppresses alternative technologies and hinders their adoption by publishers, advertisers, and rivals. The lawsuit seeks structural remedies and injunctive relief. A fifteen-day bench trial occurred in September 2024. On April 17, 2025, a Virginia federal judge ruled that Google unlawfully monopolized and tied the digital adverting markets for publishers and ad exchanges. A remedies trial before the federal judge is set to begin in September 2025.

Syngenta Illegal Payments Litigation (filed 2022)

The State of Washington along with a bipartisan group of states (State of California, State of Colorado, State of Illinois, State of Indiana, State of Iowa, State of Minnesota, State of Nebraska, State of Oregon, State of Texas, and State of Wisconsin) and the Federal Trade Commission have sued big pesticide manufacturers Syngenta and Corteva for illegal payments to distributors to limit their sales of generic pesticides. Syngenta and Corteva are two of the largest pesticide manufacturers operating in the United States. Syngenta, based in Switzerland, is a subsidiary of a Chinese state-owned company. Corteva, headquartered in Indianapolis, is the successor to the agriscience businesses of DuPont and Dow Chemical Company, which merged in 2017.

The complaint alleges that the giant pesticide firms run so-called “loyalty programs” under which distributors of pesticides get paid to not buy products from competing manufacturers of pesticides. Stifling competition, Syngenta and Corteva have inflated their prices at the expense of farmers who have to pay more for crop protection. The complaint seeks to stop this illegal scheme to block competitors from selling their cheaper generic pesticide products to farmers. It further seeks to restore competition to the pesticide markets. The litigation is ongoing in the Middle District of North Carolina.

Google IAP Monopolization and Tying Litigation (filed 2021)

Washington, in a bipartisan group of 39 state attorneys general, sued Alphabet Inc. and Google LLC (“Google”), alleging that Google is excluding competition for mobile app distribution and in-app-payment services. The complaint alleged that Google imposes several restrictions to insulate its app-distribution service, Google Play Store, from competition. Those include deterring users from directly downloading apps or installing alternative app stores through technical restrictions and pop-up warnings and entering into lucrative agreements with device manufacturers and network operators in exchange for those companies agreeing not to support alternative app stores. The complaint also alleged that Google restricts competition for in-app-payment services by requiring apps to use Google’s billing services exclusively. Finally, the complaint alleged that Google’s has made false or misleading statements about Android app distribution and payment services. The complaint pleaded violations of Sections 1 and 2 of the Sherman Act for restraints of trade, monopolization, and tying, as well as violations of state antitrust and consumer protection laws and sought injunctive and monetary relief.

In late 2023, the states obtained a settlement with Google and we await a California federal judge's ruling on the preliminary approval motion. The settlement requires Google to pay a total of $700 million, about $10.6 million of which is estimated to be distributed to Washingtonians. The settlement also requires Google to implement changes to its app-distribution service, including giving developers the ability to allow users to pay through in-app billing systems other than Google Play Billing for at least five years, and allowing developers to offer cheaper prices for their apps and in-app products for consumers who use non-Google billing systems for at least five years.

Google Search Litigation (filed 2020)

In December 2020, Washington along with a coalition of 38 states filed a lawsuit against Google alleging the company illegally maintains its monopoly power over general search engines and related general search advertising markets through a series of exclusionary contracts and anticompetitive conduct. Google entered into exclusionary agreements with mobile and other device manufacturers that require Google be preset as the default general search engine on mobile devices and computers worldwide and in many cases prohibiting the pre-installation of a competing search product. Google uses its search engine marketing tool, SA 360, to suppress competition in the search advertising market by denying interoperability with competing search engine advertising features and steering advertisers away from competing search engines to its own search advertising. Google further denies consumer of choice and quality by hindering consumers’ ability to access information provided by specialized vertical providers who compete with Google’s own vertical search offerings.

The states litigated and tried this matter before a federal judge in a nine-week trial that began in September 2023, alongside plaintiffs in a parallel lawsuit filed by the federal government and certain additional states that joined the federal government's action. In August 2024, the judge ruled that Google illegally obtained its monopoly power over general search engines and related general search advertising through a series of exclusionary contracts and anticompetitive conduct.

Litigation over remedies followed the liability trial, culminating with the states and the federal government jointly proposed remedies to restore competition and spur renewed innovation in the search marketplace and to benefit consumers. The states thereafter tried the sufficiency of the parties' proposed remedies alongside the federal enforcers in a three-week bench trial in the spring of 2025. In early September 2025, the federal judge issued its opinion summarizing the remedies it has ordered for Google's illegal maintenance of monopoly power.

Generic Drugs Price Fixing Litigation (filed 2016)

Washington and a group of fifty-four other states and U.S. territories have sued several generic drug manufacturers in three separate complaints for an alleged market allocation and price fixing scheme involving hundreds of drugs, which resulted in substantial price increases. These complaints were originally part of Multidistrict Litigation (MDL) in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. In 2024, the states successfully removed their three cases from the MDL to the U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut. As a result of this litigation, Washington and the coalition of attorneys general have obtained $49 million in settlements with defendants Apotex and Heritage Pharmaceuticals. Litigation is ongoing against 30 other pharmaceutical corporations and 25 company executives. For more information, please visit https://www.atg.wa.gov/news/news-releases/ag-ferguson-bipartisan-coalition-win-49-million-and-counting-over-generic-drugs

Past Cases

Albertsons' Land Use Restrictions Settlement (2024)

In 2024, as the result of our office's antitrust investigation, Albertsons Companies, Inc. entered into an out-of-court settlement agreement with the Attorney General’s Office requiring it to remove illegal land use restrictions that created a food desert in Bellingham's Birchwood neighborhood. Since closing its Birchwood store in 2016, Albertsons used restrictive covenants to ensure that no competitor would open a grocery store in its former location, forcing shoppers to travel further for groceries and eliminating a neighborhood grocery store for Birchwood residents. In addition to lifting the restrictive covenants, Albertsons also paid Washington $25,000 to defray the costs of the State's investigation. A supermarket is no longer barred from operating in Albertsons' former Birchwood location. For more information, please visit https://www.atg.wa.gov/news/news-releases/ag-ferguson-albertsons-lifts-illegal-restrictions-created-food-desert-bellingham .

Broiler Chicken price fixing, bid rigging and unfair methods of competition litigation (filed 2021)

In late October 2021, Washington filed suit in King County Superior Court against nineteen broiler chicken producers and a data reporting service called Agri Stats, Inc. The complaint alleged a wide-ranging conspiracy and series of anticompetitive practices to restrain broiler chicken production, manipulate price indices, rig bids, and exchange highly sensitive competitive information in violation of the Washington Consumer Protection Act. Through a series of settlements that concluded in 2024, Washington recovered a total of $37.7 million from 19 defendants. The state distributed the vast majority of these funds to Washingtonians through a combination of direct mailings and a claims process. As part of all of the resolutions, the 19 companies also entered into legally binding agreements to conduct internal training and certify that they have corporate policies to ensure they follow state and federal antitrust laws.

Suboxone Pay-for-Delay Monopolization Litigation (filed 2016)

In September 2016, Washington along with a group of 42 states filed suit against drug makers Indivior (f/k/a Reckitt Benckiser Pharmaceuticals) and MonoSol Rx for conspiring to block generic entry for Suboxone – a prescription drug used to treat opioid addiction. The states alleged that Indivior and MonoSol Rx engaged in a scheme to thwart generic competition by switching the formulation of Suboxone from a tablet to a dissolving film, and resulting in consumers paying artificially inflated prices for Suboxone. This case was filed in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania with a September 2023 trial date. In June 2023 the group of states settled the case for $102 million. Of that amount, approximately $2.1 million went to Washington.

Albertsons Special Dividend (2022)

When Albertsons and Kroger jointly announced their merger on October 14, 2022, they stated that Albertsons would pay a special cash dividend of up to $4 billion to its shareholders as early as November 7, 2022. On October 26, 2022, our office partnered with a bipartisan group of six attorneys general from around the country in sending Albertsons a letter urging Albertsons to delay paying the special dividend until the proposed merger was vetted by antitrust enforcers for potential anticompetitive impact. When Albertsons declined to do so, our office filed a lawsuit in a Washington state court to obtain a court order to prevent Albertsons from paying that dividend.

A Washington magistrate judge entered an order on November 3, 2022 that granted our motion to temporarily restrain Albertsons' ability to pay the dividend. A Washington superior court judge later declined to enter a preliminary injunction of the dividend in December 2022 after Albertsons' Chief Financial Officer testified under oath during an evidentiary hearing that Albertsons was "confident in the financial future of the Company and its continued ability to compete in its ferociously competitive industry." The State sought review of the preliminary injunction denial from the Washington Supreme Court. Despite ongoing reviews of the merger by state and federal antitrust enforcers, Albertsons chose to pay the dividend promptly after the Washington Supreme Court denied review of the preliminary injunction denial and remanded the matter to the superior court for further proceedings. Our office thereafter voluntarily dismissed the dividend lawsuit.

Based upon our office's pre-suit investigation of the Kroger/Albertsons merger, our office ultimately challenged the merger as anticompetitive (Kroger/Albertsons Merger Litigation [link to current cases]) and prevailed in a Washington state court in 2024.

Facebook Litigation (filed 2020)

Our office, in a bipartisan group of 48 attorneys’ general, filed a lawsuit against Facebook for maintaining an unlawful monopoly in December 2020. The attorneys’ general alleged that the social medial giant used a “buy-or-bury strategy” to stifle competition. After the trial court dismissed the lawsuit on timing grounds, the federal appeals court declined to revive the lawsuit. Trial in a related enforcement action brought by the Federal Trade Commission began on April 14, 2025 in a District of Columbia federal court.

Canned Tuna Price-fixing Litigation (filed 2020)

In June 2020, Washington filed a price-fixing lawsuit in King County Superior Court based on a conspiracy among the three major canned tuna brands, StarKist, Bumble Bee, and Chicken of the Sea, to illegally raise the prices of packaged tuna, charging consumers inflated prices for this staple food. Washington reached settlement agreements in 2020 with Chicken of the Sea and with Bumble Bee’s former CEO, Christopher Lischewski. In February 2021, the trial court granted Washington’s motion for summary judgment against StarKist, finding the company liable for participating in the conspiracy from at least November 2011 through December 2013, the same time period for which StarKist pled guilty in a federal criminal case based on the same conspiracy. In December 2023, Washington reached a settlement agreement with StarKist, resolving the case.

Washington recovered over $5.1 million in the tuna litigation, including a $4.1 million resolution with StarKist, a $500,000 resolution with Chicken of the Sea, a $100,000 resolution with former Bumble Bee Tuna CEO Christopher Lischewski, and $450,000 in sanctions against StarKist’s parent company, Dongwon. In 2024, funds recovered in the tuna litigation were returned to Washington consumers.

Amazon Price-Fixing Lawsuit and Consent Decree (2022)

In January 2022, Washington filed a price-fixing lawsuit against e-commerce retailer Amazon.com, Inc. The lawsuit challenged the Sold by Amazon (SBA) third-party seller program as per se illegal price fixing between competitors. The complaint asserted that Amazon targeted a subset of third-party retailers for SBA who generated the majority of fee revenue for Amazon and had the potential to increase Amazon’s profits by increasing prices of SBA products to match certain online retailer prices off of www.Amazon.com. Hundreds of third-party retailers accepted Amazon’s offers to stop competing with it for consumer sales and instead substitute Amazon’s prices for their products. In exchange, the third-party retailers received a guaranteed minimum payment and shared in any resulting net profits from SBA product sales. As a result of this program, Amazon realized increased per unit revenue for SBA products and many consumers switched from the SBA product to Amazon’s own private-label products. The parties resolved the complaint through a consent decree that shut down this price-fixing program nationwide. The consent decree also requires Amazon to provide annual compliance reporting and a $2.25 million monetary payment.

Bellingham Anesthesia Associates (BAA) Monopolization Investigation (2020) and Consent Decree (2021)

In 2020, a consumer complaint alerted the Antitrust Division of possible monopolization conduct by Bellingham Anesthesia Associates (BAA), a group of anesthesiologists in Bellingham, WA. After a thorough investigation, the Division found that BAA used exclusive contracts with hospitals and clinics over the course of at least the last two decades to make itself the de facto anesthesia provider in Whatcom and Skagit counties. BAA also forced all of its doctors to sign overly broad non-compete agreements. During the two decades BAA operated with these exclusive contracts in Bellingham, its conduct made it the dominant provider of anesthesiologists in the area. Local patients and medical providers had no choice other than a doctor from BAA. By controlling the local health care market, BAA did not have to compete to provide enhanced services, offer more options or reduce its prices.

In 2021, the Division filed an antitrust consent decree in Whatcom County Superior Court, alleging BAA’s anticompetitive conduct violated the Washington Consumer Protection Act. As a result of this consent decree, BAA was required to end its illegal dominance of the local health care market and pay $110,000 in costs and fees.

Humira Antitrust Litigation Amicus Brief (filed 2020)

Washington, joined by 19 other states, filed an amicus brief to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit supporting a class of indirect purchasers of the biologic drug Humira in UFCW Local 1500 Welfare Fund v. AbbVie Inc. in October 2020. The brief argues that agreements or combinations of agreements that allow market entry before patent expiration are not immune from antitrust scrutiny under the Supreme Court’s FTC v. Actavis decision. It further urges the Seventh Circuit to apply a holistic analysis to cases alleging a pattern of repetitive sham petitioning as an exception to antitrust immunity under the Noer-Pennington doctrine, rather than requiring evidence that every petition was objectively baseless. The case was argued and taken under advisement on February 25, 2021.

Impax Pay-for-Delay Monopolization Amicus Brief (filed 2019, favorable appellate decisions in 2021)

Washington led the attorneys general of 23 states and the District of Columbia in an amicus brief for the Fifth Circuit in support of the Federal Trade Commission in their case against Impax Laboratories. The brief argues that a restraint of trade can only be justified by or balanced against procompetitive benefits or objectives that have a logical nexus to the restraint itself. The FTC prevailed in their administrative court proceeding, and Impax appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. The Fifth Circuit denied Impax’s petition for review of the Commission’s ruling for the FTC in April 2021 and the U.S. Supreme Court similarly refused to review that ruling in December 2021.

T-Mobile/Sprint Merger Amicus Brief (2020)

In 2020, Washington filed an amicus brief in the T-Mobile/Spring merger trial, where a group of 18 states challenged the merger of the third and fourth largest national wireless providers. The amicus brief responded to a statement of interest filed earlier by the Department of Justice arguing that a group of states does not have the authority to challenge a national merger on behalf of the nation. Washington's reply argued that states are independent enforcers of the antitrust laws, and it is the role of the court, not any federal agency, to decide the lawfulness of a merger. While the states lost the trial and the merger was approved, the court agreed with the notion that states have the authority to challenge national mergers.

Live Nation Entertainment Consent Decree (2020)

In 2010, Washington and a group of 18 other states, in conjunction with the Department of Justice, reviewed the merger of Live Nation and Ticketmaster into Live Nation Entertainment, and approved it subject to certain conditions memorialized in a consent decree. An investigation by the Department of Justice concluded that Live Nation Entertainment had violated the consent decree, and in order to resolve it, Live Nation Entertainment settled in 2020 with the multistate group and the Department of Justice, modifying, clarifying, and extending the original consent decree for five more years in order to preserve competition in the market.

Mercury's Coffee Non-Compete Litigation and Settlement (2019)

In 2019, Washington entered into a consent decree with King County coffee chain Mercurys Coffee to void all of its existing non-compete agreements. The consent decree—the first of its kind for the Washington Attorney General’s office—was the result of the Antitrust Division’s investigation into Mercurys Coffee’s use of non-compete agreements with all employees—over 700 in the preceding five years, and including low-wage, hourly workers—that prevented employees from working at competing coffee shops within 10 miles of any Mercurys location for eighteen months after leaving the company. This restrictive non-compete agreement had the practical effect of preventing all Mercurys employees, including baristas, from working at most coffee shops in King County and parts of Snohomish County. This practice constituted an unfair method of competition in violation of the State’s Consumer Protection Act. As a result of the State’s investigation and settlement negotiations, Mercurys Coffee agreed to enter into a consent decree eliminating all then-in-effect non-compete agreements. Under the consent decree, Mercurys could seek leave from the Attorney General’s Office to use tailored non-competes for certain senior level executives. In addition, the company agreed to pay $50,000 to reimburse the Attorney General’s office for its attorneys' fees and costs associated with the investigation.

No Poach Amicus Briefs (2019)

In 2019, Washington submitted amicus briefs in three separate class actions filed in federal district court in the Eastern District of Washington against fast food chains over those companies' use of no poach clauses in franchise agreements. The amicus briefs responded to statements of interest filed earlier by the U.S. Department of Justice arguing, in favor of the defendants’ motions to dismiss, that franchise no poach agreements should be evaluated under the more lenient rule of reason standard. Washington's reply argued that determination of the proper standard—per se like Washington believes, or rule of reason as DOJ argues—is premature at this phase of litigation as discovery had yet to commence. Washington further stressed its extensive experience investigating and litigating no poach cases to directly counter erroneous factual assumptions DOJ made in its statements of interest. Based on that experience, Washington advised the district court that franchisors would have a heavy burden to secure rule of reason treatment. More, Washington noted that state antitrust law does not necessarily mirror its federal analogs, and accordingly, DOJ's opinions on the application of federal law does not resolve plaintiffs' state law cause of action. The underlying class actions settled before the district court could opine on the merits of the parties' or the regulators’ briefs.

PeaceHealth-PROSC Proposed Acquisition (2019)

In late 2019, the Antitrust Division received notice under the Health Care Notices statute of the proposed acquisition of the PROSC ambulatory surgery center by PeaceHealth Heath System in Bellingham, WA. PeaceHealth owns the only hospital in Bellingham, and PROSC is the largest open staff ambulatory surgery center in the area. The Division collaborated with the Federal Trade Commission in this investigation, and both agencies separately raised competitive concerns regarding certain surgical specialties. Due to the concerns raised by both agencies, the parties desisted from their proposed transaction and PROSC will remain an independent ASC.

CHI Franciscan/The Doctor's Clinic Price Fixing and Merger Litigation (2017) and Consent Decree (2019)

In 2017, Washington filed a lawsuit challenging two consummated transactions CHI Franciscan entered into on the Kitsap Peninsula. In the first, CHI Franciscan acquired WestSound Orthopaedics, a 7-member orthopedics practice. In the second, CHI Franciscan entered into a Professional Services Agreement with The Doctors Clinic, a multispecialty clinic, under which the The Doctors Clinic would join CHI Franciscan's payer contracts. The deals combined the largest providers of primary care and orthopedic physician services in the Kitsap region, greatly reducing choices and raising prices for Kitsap consumers. The parties settled days before trial, under a consent decree requiring CHI Franciscan to restore competition for healthcare services by, among other things, offering separate contracting for primary care and orthopedic services, to divest a controlling share of an ASC it had acquired. CHI Franciscan also agreed to pay $2.5 million that the state distributed as grants to health clinics and organizations to increase access to health care services for Kitsap Peninsula.

Jersey Mike's No Poach Litigation and Settlement (2018)

In 2018, Washington filed a first-in-the-nation lawsuit by a state attorney general against a company for its use of no-poach clauses. As part of its No-Poach Initiative (see below), Washington discovered that national restaurant chain Jersey Mike’s used no-poach provisions in its franchise agreements with franchise owners that restricted the mobility of Jersey Mike’s employees within the franchise system. These no-poach provisions reduced horizontal competition for the fast food workers’ labor, and are thus considered per se violations of the State’s Consumer Protection Act. Unlike dozens of companies that came before it in the State’s investigation, Jersey Mike’s refused the State’s settlement offer to resolve the investigation without a complaint. Consequently, the State filed a lawsuit in King County Superior Court against Jersey Mike’s corporate headquarters and its Washington-based franchisees. This was the first lawsuit against a company for its use of no-poach clauses by a state attorney general. Nearing the close of discovery and with only two months to trial, Jersey Mike’s settled the lawsuit by agreeing to pay $150,000 and end its use of no-poach provisions nationwide.

Fidelity/Stewart Merger (2018)

In 2018, Fidelity National Financial and Stewart Information Services announced a merger deal that would combine two of the country’s largest title insurance providers. Washington conducted an investigation in conjunction with the Federal Trade Commission, which resulted in the Federal Trade Commission filing an administrative action to block the transaction, alleging that the deal would substantially reduce competition for title insurance and other services provided by the two companies. The parties abandoned the deal a few days later.

CVS/Aetna Merger Litigation and Settlement (2018)

In 2018, Washington and a group of four other states, in conjunction with the Department of Justice, reviewed the merger of CVS and Aetna, two of the country's leading sellers of individual prescription drug plans. The multistate group and the Department of Justice concluded that the transaction would substantially lessen competition in the market and filed a lawsuit to block the merger. After several months of litigation, the parties entered into a consent decree requiring the divestiture of certain assets in order to preserve competition.

Franchisee No Poach Initiative (2018)

In January 2018, the Washington Attorney General launched the “No-Poach Initiative”—a two-year, industry-wide investigation into franchise systems’ use of “no-poach” provisions. Franchise no-poach provisions were clauses included in franchise agreements that franchise owners signed with corporate headquarters that restricted employee mobility within the same franchise system. Because these provisions reduce competition for franchise workers’ labor, economist assert that no-poach provisions stagnate wages and other benefits, and reduce opportunities for low-wage workers. Where the Antitrust Division found use of no-provisions, the franchise systems were offered an opportunity to sign an Assurance of Discontinuance (AOD) that committed the companies to ending the use of these provisions nationwide. Companies that refused to enter into an AOD were faced with a lawsuit. At the conclusion of the initiative in early 2020, Washington had secured AODs from every franchise that has a significant presence in Washington. With AODs signed by over 225 franchise systems eliminating the use of no-poach provisions across all 50 states and the District of Columbia, Washington’s initiative impacted 4,700 franchise locations in Washington, nearly 200,000 franchise locations nationwide, and freed up the competition for millions of workers’ labor throughout the United States.

CRT Price Fixing Litigation and Settlement (2018)

In 2012 Washington filed a price-fixing lawsuit against manufacturers of cathode ray tubes, or CRTs, a technology once ubiquitous in television screens and computer monitors. Defendants included LG, Philips, Samsung, Toshiba, Panasonic, Hitachi, and Chunghwa. In 2018, the case resolved, with the Defendants agreeing to pay over $39 million to resolve the state's claims. After a claims period, over $20 million in funds were distributed to consumers and state agencies in 2020.

Lidoderm Pay-for-Delay Monopolization Settlement (2018)

Washington was part of a multistate working group investigating alleged pay for delay agreements regarding Lidoderm pain patches, a pain-relief drug that treats complications from shingles, between Endo Pharmaceuticals and Teikoku Pharma. The companies entered into agreements with the multistate prohibiting them from paying or incentivizing a generic drug maker to delay entry into the drug market or to delay researching, developing, manufacturing, marketing or selling any drug product. The states also secured a payment of 2.3 million to enforce the injunctive terms and for enforcement against anti-competitive conduct in the pharmaceutical industry.

LIBOR Bid-Rigging Settlement (2018)

Washington was part of a multistate group of 45 attorneys general investigating accusations of bid-rigging involving the manipulation and suppression of the London Interbank Offered Rate (LIBOR), a daily rate showing the average interest rate that some banks charge each other to borrow money). LIBOR is a benchmark interest rate that affects financial instruments worth trillions of dollars, and has a widespread impact on global markets and consumers. As a result of this investigation, several banks have disgorged over $500 million in wrongful profits, which have been distributed to not-for-profit entities and institutional investors. These cases returned more than $12.8 million to Washington government and nonprofit entities. Washington entities that have received money back in the previous cases are: Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, Housing Authority of Snohomish County, PeaceHealth, Washington State Investment Board, Fred Hutchison Cancer Research Center, Tacoma Employees Retirement System, and Western Conference of Teamsters Pension Trust Fund.

Provigil Pay-for-Delay Monopolization Settlement (2017)

The State of Washington is part of a group of states that in 2017 reached a settlement agreement with Cephalon, Inc., Teva Pharmaceutical Industries, Ltd., Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc., and Barr Pharmaceuticals, Inc. in an antitrust case relating to the sale of the prescription pharmaceutical Provigil®. Provigil® and generic versions of Provigil® (modafinil) are primarily prescribed for the treatment of certain sleep disorders. The $125 million settlement was distributed to the states, and funds were distributed to consumers in 2019.

Questcor Monopolization Settlement (2017)

Washington and a small group of states, along with the Federal Trade Commission reached a $100 million settlement with Mallinckrodt Pharmaceuticals, plc, a global specialty pharmaceutical company, to resolve claims that it engaged in unlawful monopolization when it acquired a competitive product from Novartis to protect its monopoly over a drug approved for the treatment of a catastrophic devastating neurologic disorder affecting infants and children under 2 years of age. As a result of the anticompetitive acquisition, the price for the drug increased dramatically over the last decade.

St. Luke's/Saltzer Medical Group Merger Amicus Brief (2017)

Washington co-authored a 16-state amicus brief in support of the State of Idaho and the Federal Trade Commission urging the Ninth Circuit to affirm a lower court decision concluding that the acquisition of the Saltzer Medical Group, a prominent physician group, by the St. Luke’s Health System, substantially lessened competition in Nampa, Idaho, in violation of the antitrust laws. The Ninth Circuit affirmed the lower court decision.

Hershey-Pinnacle Merger Amicus Brief (2016)

Washington sponsored and drafted an amicus in support of Pennsylvania in its appeal to the Third Circuit of a lower court ruling that denied the Commonwealth’s request for attorney’s fees based upon the court’s view that the Commonwealth is not a “substantially prevailing party” under Section 16 of the Clayton Act because it obtained “only” a preliminary injunction. While Pennsylvania lost the appeal, the court did not strike Washington's argument down.

Springleaf/OneMain Merger Consent Decree (2016)

Washington, in conjunction with the Department of Justice, reviewed the merger between OneMain Financial and Springleaf Holdings, Inc., the two largest providers of traditional installment loans to subprime borrowers in the nation. Washington concluded that the transaction would substantially lessen competition in several cities throughout the state, and entered into a consent decree with the parties requiring the divestiture of 8 Springleaf branch locations in order to preserve competition.

LCDs Price Fixing Litigation and Settlement (2015)

In August 2010, after nearly a year of investigation, Washington sued a group of global manufacturers of TFT-LCD panels, a display technology commonly used televisions, computer monitors, laptops, and cell phones. Washington alleged that the manufacturers engaged in a worldwide conspiracy to fix the price of TFT-LCD panels between 1998 and 2006, causing consumers and the state to pay inflated prices for products incorporating these panels. After nearly 5 years of litigation, including several appeals, the manufacturers agreed to pay $63 million to resolve Washington’s claims, one of the largest recoveries in an antitrust case by Washington to date. In addition, many of the manufacturers agreed to injunctive relief prohibiting them from colluding on the sales of TFT-LCD panels in the future, and to implement antitrust compliance programs. After a claims process, Washington distributed approximately $43 million in settlement checks to consumers and state agencies.

Albertsons/Safeway Merger Consent Decree (2015)

Washington and a group of states, along with the Federal Trade Commission, reviewed the proposed acquisition of Safeway, Inc. by Cerberus Capital Management, the parent company of Albertsons. Both chains operated a substantial number of grocery stores in Washington. After several months of investigation, Washington concluded that the proposed transaction would substantially lessen competition in the grocery store market, and, in order to preserve competition, required the parties to enter into a Consent Decree to divest approximately 25 stores across the state to third parties.

DDAVP Monopolization Settlement (2012)

Washington participated in a multistate investigation of Ferring B.V. and Aventis Pharmaceuticals, Inc., involving the drug DDAVP, an antidiuretic used for the treatment of diabetes and to treat bed wetting. The multistate investigation focused on whether Ferring and Aventis had fraudulently obtained a patent on DDAVP tablets in order to thwart generic competition and maintain monopoly pricing on the drug, in violation of federal and state antitrust laws. The investigation resulted in a 33-state settlement in which Ferring and Aventis agreed to pay $3.45 million to the states for their wrongful conduct.

E-books Price Fixing Settlement (2012)

Washington was part of a multistate settlement in a case involving alleged price-fixing of E-books. The settlement is with Hachette Book Group Inc., HarperCollins Publishers L.L.C. and Simon & Schuster Inc., three of the largest publishers in the United States. The states alleged that these publishers and certain co-conspirators agreed to, among other things, increase retail E-Book prices for all consumers. Under the terms of the settlement, the three publishers have agreed to pay a total of more than $69 million to consumers to resolve these claims, and have agreed to change their business practices to restore competition among E-book retailers. Washington consumers received approximately $2 million under the settlement.

National Express/Petermann School Bus Merger Consent Decree (2012)

Washington reviewed the proposed acquisition of Petermann Partners Inc. by National Express Group PLC, in conjunction with the Department of Justice. National Express Group owns Durham School Services, one of the largest school bus companies in the country, and which holds contracts with a variety of school districts in Washington state. Petermann also contracted with numerous school districts in the state. Washington determined that the proposed acquisition would substantially lessen competition in the market for school bus services, and required National Express to divest its school bus contracts with the Battle Ground & Hockinson school districts to a new vendor in order to preserve competition. In addition, National Express entered into a Consent Decree that was filed in the Western District of Washington. The Consent Decree preserves competition for school bus services by requiring, among other things, National Express to make available bus depots to school districts or competing vendors that wish to use them in order to facilitate competitive bidding.

DRAM Price Fixing Litigation (2012)

Washington and a group of states sued several global manufacturers of Dynamic Random Access Memory computer chips in 2006. The states accused the defendants of fixing the prices of computer chips between 1998 and 2002. The states reached settlements with the major manufacturers in 2010 and in 2012 settled with the smaller manufacturers. The total settlement value was more than $290 million for the states and a nationwide class of purchasers represented by private attorneys, and funds were distributed to consumers in 2014 . Defendants include Samsung, Micron, Hynix, Infineon, Toshiba, Hitachi and others.

AT&T/T-Mobile Merger (2011)

Washington led a group of approximately 20 states in an investigation into the proposed acquisition of T-Mobile USA by AT&T. After a 6-month investigation, in conjunction with the Department of Justice, Washington and a group of states filed a lawsuit to block the proposed merger, alleging that the proposed transaction would substantially lessen competition in the wireless telecommunications industry, and increase prices for consumers. After several months of litigation, the parties ultimately abandoned the transaction.