Canned tuna buyers leading antitrust litigation over an industry wide price-fixing scheme urged the US Supreme Court to stay out of their dispute with StarKist, which had asked the justices in August to strip the long-running case of its class action status.
The retailers, restaurants, and consumers on Tuesday defended a ruling by the US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, which held that statistical models offered by the purchasers could likely show “in one stroke” if collusion among StarKist, Bumble Bee Foods, and Chicken of the Sea led to widespread overcharges. StarKist is the only company still actively defending the case.
Related: StarKist Loses Class Action Appeal In Antitrust Case
The appeals court found in April that even if each tuna buyer’s eligibility for damages might require individual proceedings, the case’s central issues are still capable of being resolved on a class-wide basis. Two judges dissented, assailing the decision for increasing plaintiffs’ settlement leverage.
The purchasers argued in a joint brief filed with the high court that the decision applied well-settled legal concepts to a case involving “the core functions of the antitrust laws.” If those basic principles lead to uneven settlement leverage, that’s for Congress to address, not the courts, they said.
Want more news? Subscribe to CPI’s free daily newsletter for more headlines and updates on antitrust developments around the world.
