THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION (Other Wrongful Conduct in Violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act)
97. Plaintiffs repeat and reallege the allegations of Paragraphs 1 through 85 as if set forth fully herein.
98. Defendants possess significant market power. Collectively, Defendants are reported to be the largest modeling agencies in the industry and are reported to control well over half of the market, measured by total volume of bookings, for models in New York.
99. As noted above, through Defendants concerted actions, Plaintiffs are required to pay (i) 20% commissions for any modeling engagements, (ii) usurious interest rates for salary advances, and (iii) for the costs incurred by the agencies in advertising the models' portfolios.
100. Defendants have been able to maintain their anti-competitive prices through various formal meetings, such as the IMMA meetings, and through various less formal meetings, at which information on rates, charges, and other terms are discussed, and in which Defendants recently discussed how to respond to new competitors who have offered lower rates than Defendants.
101. Because of Defendants' market power, Defendants have been able to maintain these restraints on competition in violation of Section 1 of the Shennan Act.
102. As a direct and foreseeable result of Defendants' violations, Plaintiffs and other members of the Class have been damaged and continue to be damaged in their business or property in that they have to pay non-competitive prices for Defendants' services in the form of commissions above 10%.
103. Defendants' standardization practices constitute a violation of Section 1 of the Shennan Antitrust Act. Pursuant to 15 U.S.C. 15 (a), Plaintiffs are therefore entitled to recover treble their actual damages caused as a result of Defendants' unlawful price-fixing and such other and further relief as permitted by law, their attorneys fees and the costs of this action.
Dave
Orlando, Florida
0 comments