Bridgestone Class Action Alleges Anti-Vibration Rubber Parts Price-Fixing

Top Class Actions’s website and social media posts use affiliate links. If you make a purchase using such links, we may receive a commission, but it will not result in any additional charges to you. Please review our Affiliate Link Disclosure for more information.

A trio of consumers have filed a proposed class action lawsuit against Bridgestone and other Japanese tire companies alleging antitrust violations involving anti-vibration rubber parts.

Anti-vibration rubber parts are comprised primarily of rubber and metal, and are installed in suspension systems and engine mounts, as well as other parts of an automobile, to reduce engine and road vibration.

Plaintiffs Jerry Anderson Sr., Laura LaRue and Christopher Lee claim they purchased anti-vibration rubber parts at inflated prices due to an alleged conspiracy between Bridgestone and other named tire companies to artificially drive up prices of certain tires.

Specifically, Bridgestone is accused of engaging in anti-competitive practices with global manufacturers and suppliers of anti-vibration rubber parts including Yamashita Rubber Co., Yusa Corp., Sumitomo Riko Co., DTR Industries, and Toyo Tire & Rubber Co. along with Toyo’s USA affiliates.

The lawsuit alleges that the tire companies violated antitrust laws by entering into a “continuing conspiracy to rig bids and fix, raise, maintain, or stabilize prices of Anti-Vibration Rubber Parts sold in the United States and elsewhere at supra-competitive levels.”

According to the plaintiffs, there are several important economic characteristics of the market for anti-vibration rubber parts that render it plausible that there was collusion among the tire parts suppliers and Bridgestone dating back to as early as March 1996. These include: high market concentration, high barriers to entry, price inelasticity and opportunities for collusion.

The plaintiffs bring this action to recover treble damages, all legal fees and interest, plus all other relief the court deems just as well as to enjoin and restrain the defendants. They are seeking to represent a Class comprised of all U.S. based direct purchasers of anti-vibration rubber parts.

This isn’t the first time Bridgestone has come under fire for an alleged price-fixing scheme. In 2014, Japan’s Bridgestone Corp. agreed to plead guilty and to pay a $425 million criminal fine to the U.S. Department of Justice for its role in a conspiracy to fix prices on certain automotive parts.

The case involved anti-vibration rubber parts sold in the United States and elsewhere to Toyota Motor Corp, Nissan Motor Corp, Fuji Heavy Industries Ltd, Suzuki Motor Corp, Isuzu Motors Ltd. and certain of their subsidiaries and affiliates.

Three executives of Bridgestone Corporation were indicted in Ohio federal court for their roles in this international conspiracy to fix prices of anti-vibration rubber parts sold in the United States and elsewhere.

The $425 million fine was the second largest fine to date resulting from the DOJ’s Antitrust Division criminal investigation of the automotive parts industry.

Bridgestone also pled guilty to another price-fixing conspiracy in October 2011. According to the DOJ, Bridgestone paid a $28 million fine for price-fixing and violations of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act involving the marine hose industry.

The plaintiffs and proposed Class are represented by David H. Fink, Darryl Bressack, and Nate Fink of Fink + Associates Law; Gregory P. Hansel, Randall B. Weill, Jonathan G. Mermin, and Michael S. Smith of Preti Flaherty Beliveau & Pachios LLP; Joseph C. Kohn, William E. Hoese, and Douglas A. Abrahams of Kohn Swift & Graf PC; Steven A. Kanner, William H. London, and Michael E. Moskovitz of Freed Kanner London & Millen LLC; Eugene A. Spector, William G. Caldes, Jonathan M. Jagher, and Jeffrey L. Spector of Spector Roseman Kodroff & Willis PC; Irwin B. Levin and Scott Gilchrist of Cohen & Malad LLP; Linda P. Nussbaum of Nussbaum Law Group PC; John G. Emerson and David G. Scott of Emerson Scott LLP; Solomon B. Cera of Cera LLP; and M. John Dominguez, Matthew W. Ruan, and David A. Young of Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC.

The Bridgestone Tires Antitrust Class Action Lawsuit is Anderson, et al. v. Bridgestone Corporation, et al., Case No. 2:16-cv-14057, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan, Southern Division.