On November 18, 2020 the Idaho Attorney General entered into a settlement agreement with three gasoline retailers following an investigation into alleged price gouging. The settlement agreement, which focuses largely on the unique restitution system it creates, discloses that the allegations in the case stemmed from the companies’ motor fuel prices following Idaho’s declaration of a state of emergency on March 13, 2020. Findings in an Idaho Statesman investigation into the settlement agreement suggest that Attorneys General are continuing to push the envelope and bringing sometimes aggressive price gouging claims.

The settlement requires each company to provide a benefit to Idaho consumers by selling gas at reduced profit margins. To calculate this benefit, each company is awarded credits when the margin between their retail price and the wholesale price of its product is less than the existing average margin of the states surrounding Idaho. Using the Attorney General’s example, if the average margin in a given month between retail and wholesale prices in the states surrounding Idaho is $.25 per gallon, and one of the retailers sells a consumer ten gallons of gas at a price with a margin of $.15 per gallon, the retailer would earn a $1 credit towards their redress obligation. The three companies have until January 2021 to satisfy these credit obligations.

The novelty of the credit system was not the only thing that raised eyebrows. An open question following the settlement was why a settlement for engaging in price gouging was focused largely on profit margins. Idaho’s price gouging statute, like many price gouging statutes, proscribes firms from charging “exorbitant or excessive prices.” But the settlement agreement frames restitution entirely in terms of margins. This question was answered last week by the Idaho Statesman who obtained 193 pages of documents on the state’s investigation pursuant to a public records request.

The documents reveal that the Attorney General’s theory of liability was indeed based entirely on profit margins. Despite the fact that gas prices dropped in Idaho following the declaration of state of emergency in March, the investigated companies allegedly saw profit margins steadily rise from the $.10 margins the companies had been collecting in February. Despite the drop in prices, the Attorney General focused on profit margins that allegedly reached as high as 70 cents/gallon, concluding that such mark-ups are “excessive at any time, but during a declared emergency it is unconscionable.”

Accordingly, even though prices had been dropping, the Idaho Attorney General nevertheless concluded that the prices were unconscionable because the companies were not dropping them even further to keep their historical margins in place.  he settlement represents a significant development in price gouging enforcement, and one that threatens to make it more difficult for companies to maintain compliance with applicable laws.

*      *      *

Visit Proskauer on Price Gouging for antitrust insights on COVID-19.

*      *      *

Proskauer’s cross-disciplinary, cross-jurisdictional Coronavirus Response Team is focused on supporting and addressing client concerns. Visit our Coronavirus Resource Center for guidance on risk management measures, practical steps businesses can take and resources to help manage ongoing operations.

Print:
Email this postTweet this postLike this postShare this post on LinkedIn
Photo of Kelly Landers Hawthorne Kelly Landers Hawthorne

Kelly Landers Hawthorne is an associate in the Litigation Department and a member of the Antitrust and Product Liability groups. She represents clients in litigations and due diligence across a range of industries, including consumer products, life sciences, healthcare, education, hospitality, sports and…

Kelly Landers Hawthorne is an associate in the Litigation Department and a member of the Antitrust and Product Liability groups. She represents clients in litigations and due diligence across a range of industries, including consumer products, life sciences, healthcare, education, hospitality, sports and entertainment.

Kelly also maintains a diverse pro bono practice. She received Proskauer’s Golden Gavel Award for excellence in pro bono work in 2019.

She is a frequent contributor to Proskauer’s Minding Your Business blog, where she authors articles related to price gouging issues.

Kelly is also a member of the Proskauer Women’s Alliance Steering Committee, where she serves on subcommittees focused on highlighting and providing professional development opportunities for women at the firm.

Prior to her legal career, Kelly was a Teach For America corps member and taught middle school in Washington, DC.

While at Columbia Law School, Kelly served as an articles editor of the Columbia Journal of Law & the Arts and interned for the Honorable Sandra Townes of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York.

Photo of John R. Ingrassia John R. Ingrassia

John is a partner at the Firm, advising on the full range of foreign investment and antitrust matters across industries, including chemicals, pharmaceutical, medical devices, telecommunications, financial services consumer goods and health care. He is the first call clients make in matters relating…

John is a partner at the Firm, advising on the full range of foreign investment and antitrust matters across industries, including chemicals, pharmaceutical, medical devices, telecommunications, financial services consumer goods and health care. He is the first call clients make in matters relating to competition and antitrust, CFIUS or foreign investment issues.

For more than 25 years, John has counselled businesses facing the most challenging antitrust issues and helped them stay out of the crosshairs — whether its distribution, pricing, channel management, mergers, acquisitions, joint ventures, or price gouging compliance.

John’s practice focuses on the analysis and resolution of CFIUS and antitrust issues related to mergers, acquisitions, and joint ventures, and the analysis and assessment of pre-merger CFIUS and HSR notification requirements. He advises clients on issues related to CFIUS national security reviews, and on CFIUS submissions when non-U.S. buyers seek to acquire U.S. businesses that have national security sensitivities.  He also regularly advises clients on international antitrust issues arising in proposed acquisitions and joint ventures, including reportability under the EC Merger Regulation and numerous other foreign merger control regimes.

His knowledge, reputation and extensive experience with the legal, practical, and technical requirements of merger clearance make him a recognized authority on Hart-Scott-Rodino antitrust merger review. John is regularly invited to participate in Federal Trade Commission and bar association meetings and takes on the issues of the day.

Photo of Christopher E. Ondeck Christopher E. Ondeck

Chris Ondeck is co-chair of the Firm’s Antitrust Group and co-head of the Washington DC office. He represents clients in complex antitrust and consumer protection litigation, defends mergers and acquisitions before the U.S. antitrust agencies, represents companies involved in government investigations, and counsels…

Chris Ondeck is co-chair of the Firm’s Antitrust Group and co-head of the Washington DC office. He represents clients in complex antitrust and consumer protection litigation, defends mergers and acquisitions before the U.S. antitrust agencies, represents companies involved in government investigations, and counsels on antitrust compliance. Chris is also the founder and leader of the firm’s Price Gouging Practice, and is one of the key thought leaders in this space.

Chris handles antitrust matters for clients in a number of industries, including food and agriculture, financial services, media, telecom, technology, e-commerce, consumer products, natural resources, oil and gas, chemicals, and pharmaceuticals.  He also serves as outside counsel to a large number of industry groups, including trade associations and cooperatives.

Chris has been recognized as a leading antitrust practitioner by Chambers, noting that clients describe him as “our primary thought partner – he’s very good at explaining the complex issues and making them easy to understand” and praising “his strong advocacy skills”; by The National Law Review as a “Go To Thought Leader 2020”; by Acritas as a “Star” in multiple years; by Benchmark Litigation as a National Litigation Star 2021; and by The Legal 500 United States for Antitrust: Civil Litigation/Class Actions.