Legislature(2003 - 2004)
05/06/2003 08:45 AM House FIN
Audio | Topic |
---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
HOUSE BILL NO. 225 "An Act relating to certain civil actions brought by the attorney general under monopoly and restraint of trade statutes; relating to the award of damages in actions brought under those statutes; and providing for an effective date." CLYDE SNIFFEN, JR. ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL, FAIR BUSINESS PRACTICES SECTION, CIVIL DIVISION (ANCHORAGE), DEPARTMENT OF LAW testified via teleconference and provided information about the bill. He stated that an antitrust law currently existed that prevented indirect purchasers from recovering losses in anti-trust cases. He explained that an indirect purchaser would be a consumer who purchases a product without being aware that an "upstream" anti trust conspiracy or violation had artificially inflated the product price. He pointed out that as a result of current anti-trust statutes, consumers might not be able to receive a positive settlement against the wrongdoer since they did not purchase the product directly from the wrongdoer. He gave the example that the price of a product might be kept high all the way down to the retailer, but that the fault would actually remain with the supplier. This bill would amend current anti-trust law, and give the Attorney General authority to bring claims on behalf of consumers against anti-trust wrongdoers "upstream". Mr. Sniffen stated that the current law originated with the Supreme Court case of Illinois Brick Company vs. Illinois, when the Court had stated that a suit could not be brought "upstream". He noted, however, that the Court had also indicated that states had the right to craft their own anti- trust laws. He mentioned that 30 other states had amended their laws to allow "upstream" suits. He maintained that there had been a number of cases when the state of Alaska had lost millions of dollars of potential revenue due to an inability to bring certain anti-trust suits. Representative Stoltze expressed concern about the price of fuels, and asked if this bill provided tools to impact investigation in this area. Mr. Sniffen confirmed that the bill would enable the Attorney General to bring action on behalf of consumers should a gas price increase conspiracy be discovered. He stated that currently such a claim could not be brought. Representative Croft MOVED to report HB225 out of Committee with individual recommendations and the accompanying fiscal note. There being NO OBJECTIONS, it was so ordered. HB 225 was REPORTED out of Committee with a "do pass" recommendation and one previously published indeterminate fiscal note #1 from the Department of Law.
Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
---|