The class-action lawsuit claims the existence of a massive price-fixing scheme employed by the biggest producers, marketers and distributors of telescopes that led customers across Canada paying a premium cost for the telescopes.
Consumers Allegedly Paid Inflated Prices for Telescopes
The plaintiff I. Baban states that he bought a Celestron FirstScope telescope from Amazon for Christmas gifts to his son in the year 2016. He also bought the same model of telescope to celebrate a friend’s birthday in December of 2016. He was reported to have purchased $68.97 every time for each of the telescopes.
According to the price fixing class action lawsuit Baban had to pay an exaggerated amount for a telescope owing to an anticompetitive behavior of the defendants.
Baban was the one to file the price-fixing class action suit in behalf of him and the proposed Class composed of Quebec residents who bought an instrument made or offered by the defendants or their alleged co-conspirators prior to January. 1st in 2005. Baban seeks refunds on behalf of himself and the proposed Class in the amount of the difference between the artificially-inflated price they paid for their telescopes and what they would have paid in a competitive market.
The defendants in the class action lawsuit are: Synta Technology Corporation of Taiwan, Synta Canada International Enterprises Ltd., Suzhou Synta Optical Technology Co. Ltd., Nanton Schmidt Opto-Electrical Technology Co. Ltd., SW Technology Corporation, Sky-Watcher USA, Pacific Telescope Corp., Celestron Acquisition LLC, Celestron International, Olivon Manufacturing Co. Ltd., Olivon International Enterprise Inc., Olivon USA LLC and Ningbo Sunny Electronic Co. Ltd.
ALSO READ
Zelda-kingdom Review {2024}: Is Zelda-kingdom com Scam?
Luxurise-fashion Review {2024}: Luxurise-fashion com Lawfull or Fake?
Buletboard Scam or legit? Buletboard com- Honest review!
Fortirise Max Review {2024}: Is Getfortirisemax site Legit?
Ballsgamegift Review {2024}: Is Ballsgamegift com licit?
Class Action Lawsuit: Companies Colluded to Fix Telescope Prices
According to the price-fixing of telescopes class action suit, Synta and Sunny are the two main producers of telescopes in Canada Their products are offered under the brands: Celestron, Meade, Sky-Watcher, Olivon and Synta.
The class action for fixing the price of telescopes lawsuit Canada states the two companies Sunny and Synta have around 20% of the global manufacturing market for telescopes. Both companies are said to be capable of producing all kinds of consumer telescopes. However, they claim to “have an illegal agreement or understanding that Synta only manufactures higher-end products while Sunny manufactures lower-end products.”
This apparently illegal arrangement allows the firms to charge prices that are excessively high and limit the supply as well as engage in other unfair practices that result in consumers paying high price for the telescopes they purchase.
Sunny and Synta are also believed to have more than 80percent of the market for distribution the telescopes sold in North America. According to the price-fixing of telescopes class action suit that was filed in 2005, there is a “vast majority” of consumer telescopes available across North America are sold by Celestron which was purchased through Synta at the end of 2005 as well as Meade which Sunny has reportedly purchased with the help of Synta.
Baban claims that defendants engaged in various anticompetitive actions, such as collectively determining the price at which customers could purchase telescopes; together establishing trade and credit conditions for the purchase of telescopes, collectively refusing to make specific telescope products, agreeing to split the market in the production as well as distribution of telescopes as well as telescopes, and working together to ensure defendants purchases of Meade.
In the wake of defendants’ anticompetitive behavior it is claimed that there has been an increase to the total number of producers of consumer telescopes. This has led to an removal of new competitors from the market, which has forced the existing independent distributors and manufacturers from the industry, and a stifling in price competition and increased costs for telescopes sold to consumers.
History of Antitrust Concerns in Consumer Telescope Market
The class action for fixing the price of telescopes lawsuit reveals the fact that there’s been complaints from antitrust regulators over the market for consumer telescopes over several decades.
“Approximately 30 years ago, the [U.S. Federal Trade Commission] investigated a proposed joint venture between Meade and Celestron that it charged would have created a virtual monopoly in the manufacture and sale of certain telescopes,” the price-fixing class action lawsuit says.
In 1991 the FTC has reportedly given its the final approval for a settlement which made the former owners of Meade and Celstron to seek FTC approval before acquiring any firm that sells or manufactures specific telescopes in the United States.
The year 2002 was the time Meade was reported to have tried buy Celestron but decided to drop the plan after a temporary restraining orders and preliminary injunction were granted at federal courts.
“According to the FTC complaint, Meade’s acquisition of Celestron assets would adversely impact the performance telescope market by eliminating substantial actual competition between the two companies and by creating a monopoly in the telescope market,” the class action lawsuit involving price fixing for telescopes states.
The telescope industry isn’t the only business to face accusations of anticompetitive conduct. A class action lawsuit for price fixing was recently filed against the manufacturers of doors because they allegedly conspired to raise the price of interior doors.
What do you think of the class action lawsuit involving price fixing for telescopes lawsuit? Do you have an instrument? Let us know in the comments section below!
Baban is represented by Andrea Grass of Consumer Law Group Inc.
The Telescope Price-Fixing Class Action Lawsuit is I. Baban v. Synta Technology Corporation of Taiwan and others. in the case No. 500-06-001095-203, in the Superior Court of Quebec, District of Montreal, Canada.
