In re HIV Antitrust Litigation

Background

The court had previously ruled that California law would not apply across the board to the IHPPs’ claims. Defendants then argued that some of the IHPPs’ state consumer-protection claims should be dismissed because the relevant laws do not apply when the alleged conduct is anticompetitive but not deceptive. After requesting supplemental briefing, the court addressed the laws of Colorado, Indiana, Louisiana, Pennsylvania, Virginia, Utah, and Wyoming.

Indiana and Wyoming

The IHPPs conceded that Indiana and Wyoming consumer-protection laws do not provide a cause of action for anticompetitive conduct. The court therefore dismissed those claims.

Colorado

The court held that the Colorado Consumer Protection Act does not provide a standalone claim for anticompetitive conduct. Although the statute lists unfair and deceptive trade practices, the court viewed its structure as focusing primarily on deceptive conduct. The court concluded that nondeceptive unfair trade practices must instead be pursued under another statute or common-law cause of action, such as the Colorado Antitrust Act. It therefore dismissed the IHPPs’ Colorado claims.

Louisiana

The Louisiana Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Law expressly prohibits unfair methods of competition as well as unfair or deceptive acts or practices. The court noted that Louisiana courts have allowed claims involving alleged violations of antitrust laws and that the Louisiana statute’s language parallels the Federal Trade Commission Act. The court therefore did not dismiss the IHPPs’ Louisiana claims.

Pennsylvania

The court held that Pennsylvania’s Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Law does not make pure anticompetitive conduct actionable under its catch-all provision. That provision requires fraudulent or deceptive conduct that creates a likelihood of confusion or misunderstanding. Because the alleged conduct did not fit that requirement, the court dismissed the IHPPs’ Pennsylvania claims.

Virginia

The court explained that the Virginia Consumer Protection Act requires fraud, deception, or misrepresentation for the potentially relevant type of claim. The cases allowing antitrust-based claims under that law involved allegations that the anticompetitive conduct also included fraud or deception. The court dismissed the IHPPs’ Virginia claims because the claims here did not adequately include those allegations.

Utah

The Utah Consumer Sales Practices Act prohibits deceptive practices and unconscionable practices in certain consumer transactions. The court concluded that the IHPPs could not proceed under the deception provision because they had not alleged deception. But the court held that anticompetitive conduct claims may proceed under the statute’s unconscionability provision, which does not require fraud or deception. The IHPPs alleged that they paid artificially inflated, above-competition prices for drugs dispensed to their members. The court found that this type of alleged injury could support an unconscionability claim, while emphasizing that the IHPPs would still need to prove that the conduct was unconscionable. The court therefore did not dismiss the Utah claims.

Disposition

The court dismissed the IHPPs’ consumer-protection claims under Colorado, Indiana, Pennsylvania, Virginia, and Wyoming law. The claims under Louisiana and Utah law were allowed to proceed. Judge Edward Chen entered the order on April 18, 2023.