Defendants' Unlawful Price Fixing Scheme
48. Defendants' scheme to evade state law limiting their fees, and their agreement on what fees to charge, is also a clear violation of federal antitrust law.
49. As noted, evidence of the inception of this unlawful scheme comes from the sworn statement of Defendant Elite's own counsel, who stated in an affidavit that Wilhelmina and Ford had agreed in the 1970s "to raise commissions charged to the models". Ford Models v. ~, Levinson Aff., 9. Pursuant to that agreement, Defendants in fact did raise their commissions charged to models to 15%, and then to 20%, which Defendants represent to aspiring and current models as the "standard", non-negotiable rate for model contracts in New York.
50. Moreover, since the inception of the price-fixing scheme between Ford and Wilhelmina, other Defendants - including Elite itself-agreed to join the conspiracy and charge the same rate to their models.
51. Defendants also agreed and conspired to implement and maintain additional price-related restraints, both individually and as an industry, that have unlawfully restrained competition and artificially inflated the price models must pay to retain an agency. For example, Defendants have collectively worked together to draft progressively more onerous "standard" contracts that currently:
A. Require the models to reimburse the agencies for any out of pocket costs incurred by the agencies in advertising the models' portfolios;
B. Require the models to pay the "mother" agency for any modeling job the models obtain, even if the models procured the employment without an agent or with the help of another agency; and
C. Require the models to pay usurious interest rates on salary advances (As discussed above, Defendants treat these salary advances as loans, which is why the additional charge imposed by Defendants can be described as "usurious".)
Dave
Orlando, Florida
0 comments