Inflation is increasingly becoming a catalyst for a surge in class action lawsuits centered on price gouging allegations. As the cost of goods and services rises, consumers, municipalities, and businesses are scrutinizing whether these price increases are justified by market conditions or if they stem from unfair or illegal practices by manufacturers and suppliers.
One vivid example is the recent lawsuit filed by the City of La Crosse, Wisconsin, against major fire truck manufacturers. The city alleges that prices for fire trucks have nearly doubled—from around $500,000 to close to $1 million—not simply due to inflation but because of coordinated efforts among manufacturers to manipulate the market. The lawsuit claims that companies like Oshkosh Corporation, REV Group, and Rosenbauer America, which collectively dominate 70 to 80 percent of the U.S. fire truck market, have engaged in anti-competitive behavior. This includes consolidating competitors through acquisitions, exchanging sensitive economic information via industry associations, and coordinating price hikes and supply restrictions to boost profits at the expense of buyers. Such actions, if proven, represent classic price gouging and market manipulation under antitrust laws.
This case highlights how inflation can provide a cover or justification for price increases that may actually be the result of collusion or reduced competition. When a few companies control a large share of the market, they have more power to set prices above competitive levels, especially during periods of rising costs. The alleged coordination through trade groups and the reduction of competition through acquisitions make it easier for these manufacturers to raise prices in tandem without fear of losing customers to rivals.
Beyond fire trucks, inflation-driven class actions are appearing in other sectors as well. For instance, Canadian consumers have been involved in a $500 million class action settlement related to alleged price fixing in the bread industry. This suggests that inflationary pressures combined with potential collusion can affect everyday consumer goods, leading to widespread legal challenges.
Similarly, in the agricultural equipment sector, companies like John Deere face class action suits and regulatory scrutiny over practices that may inflate repair costs. The Federal Trade Commission has accused Deere of restricting access to diagnostic tools and repair information, effectively forcing farmers to rely on expensive dealer repairs. This restriction can be seen as a form of price control that exacerbates the impact of inflation on farmers’ operational costs.
The rise in these lawsuits reflects a broader trend where inflation is not just a macroeconomic phenomenon but also a trigger for legal action against perceived unfair pricing. Consumers and public entities are increasingly vigilant, questioning whether price increases are
