Cathode Ray Tube (“CRT”) Indirect Settlement

*Deadline Passed, Now Filing Late Claims.

Class Members Eligible for Cathode Ray Tube (“CRT”) Indirect Settlement:Cathode Ray Tube CRT Indirect Antitrust Class Action Settlement

Individuals and businesses qualify for money from this settlement if they purchased a CRT or product containing a CRT, such as a TV or computer monitor, in the following states for their own use and not resale:


  • Arizona, California, Florida, Iowa, Kansas, Maine, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, North Dakota, South Dakota, Tennessee, Vermont, West Virginia, Wisconsin or the District of Columbia between March 1, 1995 and November 25, 2007
  • Hawaii between June 25, 2002 and November 25, 2007
  • Nebraska between July 20, 2002 and November 25, 2007
  • Nevada between February 4, 1999 and November 25, 2007

Indirect purchases of CRT televisions and monitors from all manufacturers other than Sony are eligible so long as the relevant personal use, purchase timeframe, and jurisdiction requirements are met. Purchases made directly from a defendant or alleged co-conspirator are not included.

What is a CRT (Cathode Ray Tube) Product:

Cathode Ray Tubes of any type (e.g. color display tubes, color picture tubes and monochrome display tubes) and finished products which contain Cathode Ray Tubes, such as Televisions and Computer Monitors. CRTs are found primarily in televisions and computer monitors, but may also be found in ATM machines, medical equipment, and other display devices.

Cathode Ray Tube Antitrust Class Action Indirect Settlement Case History:

The Court in charge is the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. The case is called In re: Cathode Ray Tube (CRT) Antitrust Litigation, MDL No. 1917. The lawsuit claims that the Defendants fixed the prices of CRTs from March 1, 1995 to November 25, 2007, which resulted in overcharges to people and businesses that bought CRTs and products containing CRTs, such as televisions and computer monitors. The Defendants deny these claims. The Court has not decided who is right.

On March 22, 2012, the Court approved a Settlement totaling $10,000,000 with Defendant Chunghwa. On April 18, 2014, the Court approved a Settlement totaling $25,000,000 with Defendant LG. There are now seven New Settlements totaling $541,750,000 with the Philips, Panasonic, Hitachi, Toshiba, Samsung SDI, Thomson and TDA Defendants. The Court still has to decide whether to approve the New Settlements. The total amount of all nine Settlements is $576,750,000.


  • Chunghwa Picture Tubes Ltd.; Chunghwa Picture Tubes (Malaysia) SDN. BHD (“Chunghwa”);
  • LG Electronics Inc.; LG Electronics USA, Inc.; LG Electronics Taiwan Taipei Co., Ltd. (“LG”);
  • Koninklijke Philips N.V. (f/k/a Koninklijke Philips Electronics N.V.); Philips Electronics North America
    Corporation; Philips Taiwan Limited (f/k/a Philips Electronics Industries (Taiwan), Ltd.); Philips do Brasil, Ltda.
    (f/k/a Philips da Amazonia Industria Electronica Ltda.) (“Philips”);
  • Panasonic Corporation (f/k/a Matsushita Electric Industrial Co., Ltd.); Panasonic Corporation of North America;
    MT Picture Display Co., Ltd.; and an affiliate of Panasonic Corporation, Beijing Matsushita Color CRT Co., Ltd.
    (collectively “Panasonic”);
  • Hitachi, Ltd.; Hitachi Displays, Ltd. (n/k/a Japan Display Inc.); Hitachi Electronic Devices (USA), Inc.; Hitachi
    Asia, Ltd.; Hitachi America, Ltd. (“Hitachi”);
  • Toshiba Corporation; Toshiba America Information Systems, Inc.; Toshiba America Consumer Products, L.L.C.;
  • Toshiba America Electronic Components, Inc. (“Toshiba”);
  • Samsung SDI Co. Ltd; Samsung SDI America, Inc.; Samsung SDI Brasil, Ltda.; Tianjin Samsung SDI Co., Ltd.;
  • Shenzhen Samsung SDI Co., Ltd; Samsung SDI Malaysia Sdn. Bhd; Samsung SDI Mexico S.A. de C.V.
    (“Samsung SDI”);
  • Technicolor SA (f/k/a Thomson SA); Technicolor USA, Inc. (f/k/a Thomson Consumer Electronics, Inc.)
  • Technologies Displays Americas LLC (f/k/a Thomson Americas LLC) (“TDA”).

There are several other manufacturers and sellers of CRTs that Plaintiffs allege were a part of the alleged conspiracy, but who are not currently defendants or have not appeared in the litigation. The names of these companies are:

  • LG.Philips Displays, a/k/a LP Displays International, Ltd.
  • IRICO Group Corporation; IRICO Display Devices Co., Ltd.; and IRICO Group Electronics Co., Ltd.
  • Thai CRT Company, Ltd.
  • Samtel Color, Ltd.
  • Orion Electric Company, Ltd.
  • Videocon Industries, Ltd.
  • Mitsubishi Electric Corporation; Mitsubishi Electric & Electronics USA, Inc.; and Mitsubishi Digital Electronics
    Americas, Inc.

Our Class Action Settlement Services:

CAC Recovery navigates the complex intricacies of the Cathode Ray Tube Indirect Settlement claims filing process to help businesses maximize their settlement recoveries. Cathode Ray Tube (“CRT”) Indirect Settlement

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.