Thank You For Submiting Feedback!
United States District Court for the District of Utah, Central Division
May 17, 2018, Decided; May 17, 2018, Filed
Case No. 2:16-CV-1183-TC
ORDER AND MEMORANDUM DECISION
Plaintiffs, who bought contact lenses online from the Defendants, allege that they paid artificially-inflated prices for those contact lenses due to Defendants' anti-competitive agreements. [*5] To recover damages, they bring this proposed class action alleging antitrust violations of § 1 of the Sherman Act.
Defendants move to dismiss the claims1 for failure to allege antitrust standing, failure to establish a relevant product market, and failure to allege a single overarching conspiracy. Alternatively, they argue that any damages Plaintiffs can prove must be limited to contact lens purchases made within the Sherman Act's four-year statute of limitations—i.e., 2012 to 2016. Because Plaintiffs seek damages for purchases dating back to 2004, they rely on two bases for tolling that statute: fraudulent concealment and statutory tolling. Defendants respond that Plaintiffs' allegations do not establish either. For the reasons set forth below, the motions are
Plaintiffs assert in their Consolidated Amended Complaint (CAC)3 that a series of trademark litigation settlement agreements between 1-800 and other on-line contact lens retailers suppressed competition in the online market for contact lenses, artificially inflated the cost of contact lenses purchased online, and deprived consumers of complete and important information about competing retailers and their [*6] products. This, they contend, violated § 1 of the Sherman Act, which provides that "[e]very contract, combination in the form of trust or otherwise, or conspiracy, in restraint of trade or commerce among the several States, or with foreign nations, is declared to be illegal." 15 U.S.C. § 1.
Full case includes Shepard's, Headnotes, Legal Analytics from Lex Machina, and more.
2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 83806 *; 2018-1 Trade Cas. (CCH) P80,384; 2018 WL 2271024
J. THOMPSON, et al., Plaintiffs, vs. 1-800 CONTACTS, INC., et al., Defendants.
Subsequent History: Motion denied by, Motion denied by, As moot Thompson v. 1-800 Contacts, Inc., 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 114615 (D. Utah, July 5, 2019)
Motion granted by Thompson v. 1-800 Contacts, Inc., 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 174892 (D. Utah, Aug. 29, 2019)
Settled by Thompson v. 1-800 Contacts, Inc., 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 125004 (D. Utah, June 3, 2020)
online, retailers, contact lens, prices, advertising, antitrust, consumers, Plaintiffs', tolling, parties, settlement agreement, customers, anticompetitive, Defendants', allegations, conspiracy, non-disclosure, courts, motion to dismiss, sellers, notice, terms, Sherman Act, factors, offline, fraudulent concealment, provisions, products, interchangeability, restrictions