Walmart and Energizer have been ordered by a U.S. judge to face a lawsuit by consumers and retailers accusing them of violating antitrust laws by conspiring to raise battery prices.
In a ruling Friday, U.S. District Judge P. Casey Pitts ruled that plaintiffs in three proposed class-action lawsuits claim that Walmart inflated wholesale prices for batteries for Energizer in exchange for preferential treatment in its stores, and others. It said it plausibly claimed that it had pressured retailers to prevent it from undercutting its prices. .
Plaintiffs say the alleged conspiracy began in 2018, when other retailers risked being terminated by Energizer, the largest U.S. manufacturer of disposable batteries, if they charged lower prices than Walmart, the world’s largest retailer. He said he was exposed to.
They said it also led to higher prices at checkout for Energizer Inc., which accounts for 85% of U.S. battery sales, and Berkshire Hathaway Inc.’s Duracell Inc.
In the summer of 2019, a pack of 24 Energizer Max alkaline AAA batteries sold for an average of $16.24 at Walmart, about a third more expensive than the previous year, according to the complaint.
Mr. Pitts, who is based in San Jose, Calif., said the accusations make the agreement to fix prices “more consistent” than Energizer’s independent decision-making, which prefers to lower retail prices to maximize sales. He said it looks like there is.
The judge quoted an Energizer sales representative as telling the chief executive officer of plaintiff retailer Portable Power that Energizer’s pricing policy was “1000% about Walmart.”
Energizer declined to comment and said the St. Louis-based company does not discuss pending litigation. Bentonville, Arkansas-based Walmart did not respond to a request for comment. Duracell is not a defendant.
In seeking dismissal, the defendants argue that Energizer’s decision to enter into an exclusive contract with Walmart and set minimum retail prices to frustrate discounters is “completely consistent with reasonable, unilateral business conduct. ‘ he claimed.
“We look forward to bringing this matter to trial,” said Todd Schneider, an attorney for some of the plaintiff retailers and consumers.
The lawsuit seeks indemnification and triple damages for violations of federal and state antitrust laws and state consumer protection laws.
The lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California is as follows: Copeland et al v Energizer Holdings Inc et al, No. 23-02087. Portable Power Inc v Energizer Holdings Inc et al, No. 23-02091, and Schuman et al v Energizer Holdings Inc et al, No. 23-02093.
