The lithium-ion batteries settlement resolved an antitrust class action accusing major battery manufacturers of fixing prices on cylindrical lithium-ion cells used in laptops, power tools, camcorders, and replacement batteries. Indirect purchaser settlements totaled roughly $113 million. The claims deadline was November 29, 2017, and no new claims can be submitted.1govinfo. Order Granting Indirect Purchaser Plaintiffs’ Motion for Final Approval
What the Case Alleged
The litigation accused companies including Sony, LG Chem, Panasonic, Samsung SDI, Sanyo, Maxell, and Hitachi of coordinating prices and schemes to eliminate competitive bidding on cylindrical lithium-ion batteries.2CourtListener. In Re Lithium Ion Batteries Antitrust Litigation, 4:13-md-02420 Court filings alleged the conspiracy ran from at least January 1, 2000, through May 31, 2011.3govinfo. Order Denying Defendant Toshiba Corporation’s Motion to Dismiss in In re Lithium Ion Batteries Antitrust Litigation Because the overcharge was built in at the wholesale level, consumers and businesses who later bought finished products at retail paid more than they would have in a competitive market. Those buyers made up the “indirect purchaser” class.
A parallel Department of Justice criminal investigation produced guilty pleas from Sanyo and LG Chem, with Sanyo ordered to pay a $10.731 million criminal fine.4U.S. Department of Justice. Panasonic and Its Subsidiary Sanyo Agree to Plead Guilty in Separate Price-Fixing Conspiracies Those pleas strengthened the civil plaintiffs’ hand and preceded a series of class settlements.
Who and What Qualified
The settlement class covered individuals and businesses in the United States who indirectly purchased qualifying products between January 1, 2000, and May 31, 2011. “Indirectly” meant buying from a retailer or any seller other than the battery manufacturer. Purchases for resale were excluded, and so were federal and state government entities.
Four product categories qualified, provided the item contained a cylindrical lithium-ion battery from one of the defendants or their alleged co-conspirators:
- Portable computers, including laptops and notebooks
- Cordless power tools such as drills
- Camcorders
- Replacement batteries for any of the above
Cell phones were not part of the indirect purchaser class, even though the initial multidistrict litigation transfer order referenced batteries used in cellular telephones.5United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation. In Re Lithium Ion Batteries Antitrust Litigation A phone purchase alone would not have supported a claim.
How Much Claimants Received
The defendants settled at different stages, and the combined indirect purchaser settlements came to about $113 million. After attorneys’ fees and administrative costs, the remaining money went to class members with valid claims.
Individual payments were not set in advance. The amount each claimant got depended on how many valid claims came in and how many qualifying products the claimant documented. With eleven years of eligible purchases and a very large consumer base, per-person payouts tended to be modest. Some claimants reported receiving less than two dollars, while others with larger documented purchases got more. Distributions went out in multiple rounds, with payments continuing as recently as early 2024.
Current Status and Uncashed Checks
The claims deadline was November 29, 2017, with extensions granted after that date. The Northern District of California later granted final approval of the indirect purchaser settlements, and the case is effectively closed for new participation.1govinfo. Order Granting Indirect Purchaser Plaintiffs’ Motion for Final Approval
If you filed a valid claim and received a check but never cashed it, the money may have been turned over to your state’s unclaimed property office. Most states hold uncashed settlement checks for one to five years before absorbing them into the state treasury. Searching your state’s unclaimed property database using your name is the way to check.
Taxes on the Payment
The IRS determines the taxability of a settlement payment by what the payment was meant to replace.6Internal Revenue Service. Tax Implications of Settlements and Judgments A price-fixing payment refunds part of what you were overcharged, so it generally functions as a reduction in the original purchase price rather than new income. For most class members, the small payment amounts made the tax impact negligible. If you received enough to trigger a Form 1099, it should have been reported on the return for the year the funds arrived, and a tax professional can walk you through anything specific to your situation.