Federal Appeals Court Upholds $2.7 Billion Blue Cross Blue Shield Antitrust Settlement
The Eleventh Circuit Court has affirmed a nearly $2.7 billion antitrust settlement involving Blue Cross Blue Shield insurers. This decision, outlined in a PDF opinion released earlier this week, upholds a ruling from the Alabama district court in 2022.
The ruling clears the path for the distribution of these funds, while also bringing an end to a protracted legal battle arising from a class-action lawsuit. This lawsuit alleged that major Blue Cross Blue Shield plans had engaged in territorial allocation to evade competition, per Reuters.
The Blue Cross Blue Shield Association had agreed to the settlement back in 2020, and other parties subsequently followed suit. Notably, Home Depot, a significant employer, challenged the Alabama ruling. Their argument was that allowing the ruling to stand could potentially hinder future antitrust efforts against the Blue Cross Blue Shield system.
However, the court ultimately disagreed with Home Depot’s concerns. It clarified that although the settlement includes a release preventing future class-action claims against Blue Cross plans, it does not obstruct the federal government from pursuing antitrust actions against a Blue Cross plan. The court’s statement emphasized this point: “The release in this appeal is limited and affects the rights of only some private individuals to sue Blue Cross, and it does not affect public enforcement of the antitrust laws.”
Related: Ford Motor Brings Antitrust Suit Against Blue Cross Blue Shield
The court further stated, “The settlement agreement does not bar the Department of Justice or state attorneys general from pursuing civil claims or criminal charges against Blue Cross. Home Depot’s concern that the release will undermine the enforcement of the antitrust laws is overstated.”
Another appeal was brought forth by Topographic and Employee Services, two consultancies, who raised concerns about the settlement’s classification of the class into two groups. One group primarily comprised self-funded clients, while the other consisted of fully insured firms. As per the existing arrangement, the majority of the settlement would be allocated to fully insured plan sponsors.
While acknowledging that this allocation approach was uneven, the court found that it did not constitute unfair treatment. The court noted, “The self-funded claimants were represented by their own counsel and class representatives in the settlement negotiations and received some compensation from the settlement. Although the settlement agreement’s allocation is facially unequal, it is not facially unfair.”
Source: Reuters
Featured News
Google and South Carolina Clash Over State Records Demand
May 8, 2024 by
CPI
Telefonica Germany Teams Up with Amazon Web Services to Migrate 5G Customers
May 8, 2024 by
CPI
Federal Judge Grants $7.4 Million Settlement in Pork Price-Fixing Case
May 8, 2024 by
CPI
Wilson Sonsini Bolsters Antitrust and Competition Practice with Key Partner Returns
May 8, 2024 by
CPI
EU to Scrutinize Telecom Italia’s Network Sale to KKR
May 8, 2024 by
CPI
Antitrust Mix by CPI
Antitrust Chronicle® – Economics of Criminal Antitrust
Apr 19, 2024 by
CPI
Navigating Economic Expert Work in Criminal Antitrust Litigation
Apr 19, 2024 by
CPI
The Increased Importance of Economics in Cartel Cases
Apr 19, 2024 by
CPI
A Law and Economics Analysis of the Antitrust Treatment of Physician Collective Price Agreements
Apr 19, 2024 by
CPI
Information Exchange In Criminal Antitrust Cases: How Economic Testimony Can Tip The Scales
Apr 19, 2024 by
CPI