Between 1995 and 2007, the world’s dominant cathode ray tube manufacturers — collectively controlling approximately 90% of global CRT production — met over 100 times to coordinate pricing, set roughly 1,800 target prices, and allocate market share. The cartel included Chunghwa, Samsung, LG, Philips, Panasonic, Toshiba, Hitachi, and others. The price-fixing inflated the cost of every CRT television and computer monitor sold during a twelve-year period.
The case was consolidated as MDL No. 1917 in the Northern District of California. Proving the conspiracy and its damages required the jury to follow a complex economic narrative: how target prices set in private meetings between executives in Asia translated into overcharges paid by American consumers purchasing televisions and monitors through multi-layered distribution channels.
The factual record was enormous — thousands of internal communications, pricing spreadsheets, meeting records, and market data spanning more than a decade. The defendants argued that price-fixing was impossible in a market with highly differentiated products, individualized customer negotiations, and falling prices driven by declining CRT demand. The plaintiffs needed to show that despite surface-level price variation, the cartel maintained a price structure that kept prices above competitive levels across the entire market.
California Technical Media produced the litigation graphics used by plaintiff class counsel in the prosecution of this case.
The visual strategy centered on making the cartel’s operation visible and its economic impact comprehensible. The defendants’ core defense was complexity — that the market was too differentiated, the products too varied, and the pricing too individualized for a conspiracy to function. The graphics needed to cut through that complexity and show the jury the structure underneath.
California Technical Media produced pricing trend charts showing coordinated price movements across defendants and product categories — making visible the parallel pricing behavior that economic testimony described. Timeline graphics mapped the cartel’s meeting schedule against price changes in the market, allowing the jury to see the relationship between private coordination and public pricing.
Corporate relationship diagrams showed the connections between parent companies, subsidiaries, and regional entities across multiple countries — clarifying which executives met with which counterparts and how pricing directives flowed from cartel meetings to individual sales negotiations. Transaction flow graphics traced CRT components through the distribution chain from manufacturer to end consumer, supporting the pass-through analysis required to prove damages to indirect purchasers.
Damages model visualizations presented the economic expert’s overcharge calculations in graphic form — showing the but-for competitive price, the actual cartel-inflated price, and the resulting damages across product categories and time periods.
The defendant manufacturers paid over $563 million in settlements to indirect purchasers, with additional settlements to direct purchasers bringing total recoveries above $576 million. Settlements were reached with Chunghwa, LG, Philips, Panasonic, Hitachi, Toshiba, Samsung SDI, Thomson, Technologies Displays America, and Mitsubishi Electric. The settlements were approved by U.S. District Judge Jon S. Tigar in the Northern District of California.
Multi-defendant pricing charts showing coordinated price movements across CRT product categories over the twelve-year conspiracy period. Designed to make parallel pricing behavior visible alongside economic expert testimony.
Chronological timeline mapping over 100 documented cartel meetings against corresponding price changes in the CRT market. Annotated with document references and defendant identifications.
Organizational maps showing parent-subsidiary relationships, executive roles, and communication pathways across the defendant companies and their regional entities.
Graphic presentation of the economic expert’s overcharge analysis, showing competitive benchmark pricing, actual cartel-inflated pricing, and calculated damages across product categories and distribution channels.