Auto Parts Direct Purchaser Antitrust Settlements

Automotive Dealers Please Visit Dedicated Automotive Parts Settlements Page

Please See Automotive Parts Indirect Settlements Page

The Auto Parts Antitrust Litigation is a coordinated legal proceeding comprised of a number of cases involving different parts that were purchased directly or indirectly from a defendant for use in motor vehicles. The cases currently included in the Auto Parts Antitrust Settlements are:

  Case Name: Occupant Safety Systems Wire Harness Instrument Panel
  Filing Deadline: August 10, 2015 TBD TBD
  Settlement Amount: At Least $43.6 Million At Least $4.75 Million At Least $5.25 Million

Auto Parts Antitrust Settlements Case Information:

Occupant Safety Systems Settlement

Eligible Class Members:Auto Parts Antitrust Occupant Safety Systems Settlement

All individuals and entities who purchased Occupant Safety Systems in the United States directly from one or more Defendants or any of the Defendants’ respective current or former parents, subsidiaries or affiliates, or any coconspirator of a Defendant from January 1, 2003 through February 25, 2015.

What are Occupant Safety Systems?

“Occupant Safety Systems,” for purposes of the settlement, are seat belts, airbags, steering wheels or steering systems, safety electronic systems and related parts and components.

Who are the Defendants in the Auto Parts Antitrust Occupant Safety Systems Settlement?

Autoliv Inc.; Autoliv ASP, Inc.; Autoliv B.V. & Co. KG; Autoliv Japan Ltd.; Takata Corporation; TK Holdings, Inc.; Tokai Rika Co., Ltd.; TRAM, Inc. d/b/a Tokai Rika U.S.A. Inc.; Toyoda Gosei Co., Ltd.; Toyoda Gosei North America Corporation; TG Missouri Corporation; TRW Automotive Holdings Corp.; and TRW Deutschland Holding GmbH.

What is the Auto Parts Antitrust Occupant Safety Systems Settlement case about?

Plaintiffs allege that Defendants entered into a conspiracy to suppress and eliminate competition for Occupant Safety Systems by agreeing to fix, maintain, or stabilize prices, rig bids, and allocate the supply of Occupant Safety Systems, in violation of federal antitrust laws. Plaintiffs further allege that as a result of the conspiracy, they and other direct purchasers of Occupant Safety Systems have been injured by paying more for those products than they would have paid in the absence of the alleged illegal conduct, and they seek recovery of treble damages, together with reimbursement of costs and an award of attorneys’ fees.

Wire Harness Products Settlement

Eligible Class Members:

All individuals and entities that purchased Wire Harness Products in the United States directly from one or more Defendants from January 1, 2000 through May 5, 2014.

What are Wire Harness Products?Auto Parts Antitrust Wire Harness Product Settlement

“Wire Harness Products” means wire harnesses and the following related products: automotive electrical wiring, lead wire assemblies, cable bond, automotive wiring connectors, automotive wiring terminals, high voltage wiring, electronic control units, fuse boxes, relay boxes, junction blocks, power distributors, and speed sensor wire assemblies used in motor vehicles.

Who are the Defendants in the Auto Parts Antitrust Wire Harness Settlement?

Denso Corporation; Denso International America, Inc.; Fujikura Ltd.; Fujikura Automotive America LLC; Furukawa Electric Co., Ltd.; American Furukawa, Inc.; Furukawa Wiring Systems America, Inc. f/k/a Furukawa Lear Corporation and Lear Furukawa Corporation; G.S. Electech, Inc.; G.S. Wiring Systems Inc.; G.S.W. Manufacturing, Inc.; Lear Corporation; Sumitomo Electric Industries, Ltd.; Sumitomo Wiring Systems, Ltd.; Sumitomo Electric Wiring Systems, Inc.; K&S Wiring Systems, Inc.; Sumitomo Wiring Systems (U.S.A.); Yazaki Corporation; Yazaki North America, Inc.; Tokai Rika Co., Ltd.; and TRAM, Inc.

What is the Auto Parts Antitrust Wire Harness Settlement case about?

Direct Purchaser Plaintiffs allege that Defendants entered into a conspiracy to suppress and eliminate competition for Wire Harness Products by agreeing to rig bids for, and to raise, fix, stabilize, or maintain the prices of, Wire Harness Products, in violation of federal antitrust laws. Direct Purchaser Plaintiffs further allege that, as a result of the conspiracy, they and other direct purchasers of Wire Harness Products have been injured by paying more for those products than they would have paid in the absence of the alleged illegal conduct, and they seek recovery of treble damages, together with reimbursement of costs and an award of attorneys’ fees.

Instrument Panel Clusters Settlement

Eligible Class Members:

All persons or entities (but excluding Defendants, their officers, directors, and employees, as well as Defendants’ parents, predecessors, successors, subsidiaries, and affiliates) who purchased Instrument Panel Clusters in the United States, its territories, and possessions, directly from any Defendant, including Settling Defendants, or from any of their parents, predecessors, successors, subsidiaries, or affiliates, during the period from January 2001 up to and including May 16, 2014.

Auto Parts Antitrust Instrument Panel Clusters SettlementWhat are Instrument Panel Clusters?

“Instrument Panel Clusters,” for purposes of the settlement, are the mounted array of instruments and gauges housed in front of the driver of a motor vehicle. They are also known as meters.

Who are the Defendants in the Auto Parts Antitrust Instrument Panel Clusters Settlement?

Nippon Seiki Co., Ltd.; N.S. International, Ltd.; New Sabina Industries, Inc.; Yazaki Corporation; Yazaki North America Inc.; Denso Corporation; and Denso International America, Inc.

What is the Auto Parts Antitrust Instrument Panel Clusters Settlement case about?

Plaintiff alleges that defendants entered into a conspiracy to suppress and eliminate competition for Instrument Panel Clusters by agreeing to raise, fix, maintain, or stabilize prices, rig bids, and allocate markets and customers for Instrument Panel Clusters, in violation of federal antitrust laws. Plaintiff further alleges that, as a result of the conspiracy, it and other direct purchasers of Instrument Panel Clusters have been injured by paying more for those products than they would have paid in the absence of the alleged illegal conduct, and it seeks recovery of treble damages, together with reimbursement of costs and an award of attorneys’ fees.

Our Class Action Settlement Services:

CAC Recovery navigates the complex intricacies of the Auto Parts Antitrust Settlements Antitrust Litigation Settlement claims filing process to help businesses maximize their settlement recoveries.

Our class action settlement services include:

  • Identifying class action claims where businesses may be eligible to file
  • Filing the class action claim with supporting documentation
  • Interacting with the class action Claims Administrator
  • Providing updates on class action claim settlements status
  • Resolving Claims Administrator questions on claims
  • Reviewing the recovery to assure the correct compensation claims amount has been received

Our Guarantee: We Get Paid When You Recover – No hidden charges or up-front fees. We provide our class action settlements services based on a contingency fee.

Getting Started is easy! If you represent a business we’ll first have you fill out our Get Started form and a CAC representative will contact you within 24 hours to review your eligibility and walk you through the claims process.