In re HIV Antitrust Litigation
Opinion
Trial Court Opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 IN RE HIV ANTITRUST LITIGATION Case No. 19-cv-02573-EMC
ORDER RE IHPPS’ CLAIMS UNDER
STATE CONSUMER PROTECTION
LAWS
10 Docket Nos. 1659, 1724, 1725
12 13 The Court previously held in its order on the in limine motions that California law would not apply across the board to the IHPPs’ claims. See Docket No. 1716 (Order at 6-7). Anticipating that ruling, Defendants argued that, if the laws of multiple states apply, then some of the IHPPs’ consumer protection claims should be dismissed. According to Defendants, “some state consumer protection laws . . . do not apply where there is only anticompetitive conduct at issue,” Docket No. 1716 (Order at 7), as opposed to, e.g., deceptive conduct. The Court asked the parties to provide supplemental briefing on the laws of the states identified by Defendants. See Docket No. 1716 (Order at 7). Having received that briefing, the Court rules as follows. The IHPPs’ consumer protection claims based on the laws of the…