February 02, 2023

Consumer-Facing Algorithmic Pricing Cases

You've Reached Your
Free Article Limit This Month
Register for free to get unlimited access to all OnPractice content.
Register Now
Go-To Guide:
  • Algorithmic pricing software cases on the rise
  • Consumer class actions allege hub and spoke conspiracies

Algorithmic pricing software in consumer-facing industries recently has generated a proliferation of class action lawsuits in the United States. Algorithmic pricing software relies on historic patterns and current data within a set market to make recommendations on pricing based on the end user's preferences and goals. The cases filed allege competitors' use of algorithmic pricing software in a given market violates Section 1 of the Sherman Act, claiming the competitors and software provider are engaged in a "hub and spoke" conspiracy to fix prices. Several cases have been filed, all of which are at the very early stages of litigation in federal courts around the United States.

Both EU and U.S. regulatory bodies have addressed algorithmic pricing models. The U.S. Federal Trade Commission and Department of Justice previously stated in a paper to the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) that without an agreement with a competitor over the use or purpose of algorithmic pricing software, there can be no Section 1 violation. However, the agencies gave an example of an enforcement action against competitors that used algorithm-based pricing software with the express agreement to match prices. The agencies also noted:

If competing firms each entered into separate agreements with a single firm (for instance a platform) to use a particular pricing algorithm, and the evidence showed they did so with the common understanding that all of the other competitors would use the identical algorithm, that evidence could be used to prove an agreement among the competitors that violates U.S. antitrust law. The lack of direct communication among the competitors would not be a bar to finding an unlawful conspiracy.

In 2017, the European Union also provided the OECD with two general principles for the treatment of pricing algorithms under EU competition law:

First, if pricing practices are illegal when implemented offline, there is a strong chance that they will be illegal as well when implemented online. Second, firms involved in illegal pricing practices cannot avoid liability on the grounds that their prices were determined by algorithms. Like an employee or an outside consultant working under a firm's "direction or control", an algorithm remains under the firm's control, and therefore the firm is liable for its actions.

The use of algorithmic pricing software is growing in both the United States and Europe across numerous industries. With the expansion of several plaintiff-oriented U.S. law firms in the UK and EU, industries in these regions may face suits similar to those filed in the United States.

Moreover, given the EU's Representative Actions Directive (RAD), which set a deadline of Dec. 25, 2022, for EU member states to have a mechanism in place for representative actions to allow consumers to litigate their collective interests, and the fact that these regulations are now coming into effect, more collective actions related to the use of algorithmic pricing software may be filed in the future.

ALM expressly disclaims any express or implied warranty regarding the OnPractice Content, including any implied warranty that the OnPractice Content is accurate, has been corrected or is otherwise free from errors.

More From Greenberg Traurig

Schedule A I-140: Fast-Track Green Card for Nurses and Physical Therapists

By Caterina Cappellari Greenberg Traurig May 26 , 2023

Most employment-based permanent residency applications require the applicant to go through the PERM labor certification process where the U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) certifies that there are not sufficient U.S. workers able, available, and qualified to fill a position.

SCOTUS to Warhol Foundation: Your Use of Previously Licensed Work Isn't Fair

By Steven J. Wadyka Jr. Greenberg Traurig May 26 , 2023

On May 18, 2023, the United States Supreme Court issued its long-awaited decision in Andy Warhol Foundation for the Visual Arts, Inc. v. Goldsmith, a case that presented the Court with an opportunity to bring clarity to the often highly subjective standards lower courts apply when deciding the issue of fair use of visual works of art under copyright law.

Supreme Court Issues Decision Sharply Limiting Clean Water Act Jurisdiction over Wetlands

By Bernadette M. Rappold Greenberg Traurig May 26 , 2023

Sometimes the most monumental Supreme Court decisions spring from the most modest facts.

More From Class Actions

On the Road Again: Alternative Designs May Impact Trade Dress Functionality Analysis

By Kavya Rallabhandi McDermott Will & Emery May 25 , 2023

The US Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit reversed and remanded a summary judgment ruling, finding that there were genuine disputes of material fact regarding whether the plaintiff’s alleged trade dress was functional and therefore excluded from trade dress protection.

Chipping Away at Two-Step Conditional Certification in FLSA Collective Actions

By David R. Golder Jackson Lewis P.C. May 17 , 2023

A federal district court located within the jurisdiction of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit has adopted the heightened standard for certification of a collective action under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) established in a 2021 landmark opinion by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.

Florida Adds a New Twist to Consumer Privacy Patchwork

By David P. Saunders McDermott Will & Emery May 10 , 2023

On May 9, 2023, the Florida legislature passed the Florida Digital Bill of Rights (FDBR), which adds a new twist to the growing body of state consumer privacy laws.

Featured Stories