Summary of Federal Judge Rules in Favor of Universal Surveillance Systems, Paving Way for Antitrust Lawsuit Against Checkpoint Systems
Universal Surveillance Systems (USS) successfully advanced its antitrust lawsuit against Checkpoint Systems, alleging monopolistic practices in the electronic article surveillance (EAS) market. The court ruled that USS's claims regarding unfair distribution agreements and exclusionary conduct are valid, allowing the case to proceed on all counts despite Checkpoint's motion to dismiss.
Parts used in the Antitrust Lawsuit:
- Electronic Article Surveillance (EAS) systems
- EAS security tags
- EAS monitoring systems
- Closed-circuit television (CCTV) systems
- Loss prevention solutions
Rancho Cucamonga, CA (PRWEB) February 22, 2012
An antitrust lawsuit filed by Universal Surveillance Systems LLC (USS) against Checkpoint Systems, Inc. (CKP) was found by U.S. District Judge John Adams of the Northern District of Ohio to meet all of the necessary requirements to proceed on all claims despite Checkpoints motion to dismiss.
The lawsuit by USS alleges that Checkpoint illegally attempted to suppress USS and other would-be competitors through unfair distribution agreements and a systematic campaign of exclusionary conduct to stifle competition in the market for electronic article surveillance (EAS) systems sold to food and drug retailers. According to the suit, the actions by Checkpoint, which controls at least 80 percent of the EAS market, allegedly resulted in driving up prices for security tags, limiting choices for customers, and thwarting competition in the market.
According to the lawsuit, Checkpoint attempted to thwart competition by proposing unfair distribution agreements that would have prohibited USS from selling any competing goods to Checkpoint customers while not obligating Checkpoint to distribute USS products. After USS refused, Checkpoint allegedly resorted to a systematic campaign of exclusionary conduct to stifle competition from USS and other competitors by entering into long-term, exclusive contracts that prohibited their retail store customers from doing business with rival EAS tag suppliers and bundling their EAS tags with their EAS monitoring systems to dominate the industry.
Judge Adams ruling is critical to assure fair competition in the EAS industry, said Adel Sayegh, President and CEO of USS. Under U.S. antitrust laws, no single company has the right to unfairly suppress its competitors. When that happens, the American public loses. We believe that, as a result of Checkpoints alleged actions, retailers have paid inflated prices for inferior Checkpoint EAS tags. We look forward to moving ahead on this lawsuit and restoring healthy competition to the EAS industry.
The case is Universal Surveillance Corp. v. Checkpoint Systems Corp., case number 5:11-cv-01755, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio.
About Us:
Universal Surveillance Systems (USS) is the largest privately held innovator of loss prevention solutions. Since 1995, USS has maintained the vision of providing unsurpassed technical innovation with unrivaled customer support to Fortune 500 clients, worldwide leading retailers, and local communities. USS offers total security solutions designed to deter theft, prevent loss, and increase profitability. To learn more about the complete line of USS electronic article surveillance (EAS) tags, closed-circuit television (CCTV) systems and loss prevention solutions, visit USS at http://www.universaleas.com.
###
Related Electronic Circuits Press Releases
- What did Universal Surveillance Systems allege Checkpoint did?
They alleged Checkpoint illegally attempted to suppress competitors through unfair distribution agreements and a systematic campaign of exclusionary conduct. - How much of the EAS market does Checkpoint control?
According to the suit, Checkpoint controls at least 80 percent of the EAS market. - Did the judge allow the lawsuit to proceed?
Yes, U.S. District Judge John Adams found the lawsuit met all necessary requirements to proceed on all claims. - What specific actions did Checkpoint allegedly take to stifle competition?
Checkpoint allegedly entered into long-term exclusive contracts prohibiting customers from doing business with rivals and bundled EAS tags with monitoring systems. - Can a single company unfairly suppress its competitors under U.S. antitrust laws?
No, according to USS President Adel Sayegh, no single company has the right to unfairly suppress its competitors under these laws. - What impact did Checkpoint's alleged actions have on retailers?
The suit claims these actions resulted in driving up prices for security tags and limiting choices for customers. - Where is the case being heard?
The case is being heard in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio. - Who filed the antitrust lawsuit?
Universal Surveillance Systems LLC (USS) filed the lawsuit against Checkpoint Systems, Inc.
