Arizona Attorney General Terry Goddard 2010 Annual Report

Public Advocacy Division (continued)
Antitrust Unit
• DRAM
In June 2010, the Antitrust
Unit, along with 32 other
states and private class counsel,
reached a $173 million
settlement that resolved
antitrust claims against
several international Dynamic
Random Access Memory
(“DRAM”) manufacturers.
The settlement resolved the
states’ 2006 lawsuit alleging
the DRAM manufacturers had
fixed prices and committed
other violations of state and
federal antitrust laws.
DRAM is common form of
electronic memory, which
stores and retrieves data at
high speeds. It is found in
a wide variety of computer,
telecommunication and consumer
electronics products.
The amount Arizona’s state
and local agencies will
recover as a result of the
settlement, which had not yet
been filed with the court and
is subject to court approval,
had not yet been determined.
The DRAM manufacturers
named in the lawsuit include
the American companies
Micron Technology, Inc. and
NEC Electronics America, Inc.,
as well as foreign companies
Infineon Technologies A.G. in
Germany; Hynix Semiconductor,
Inc. in South Korea; Elpida
Memory Inc. in Japan; Mosel-
Vitelic Corp. in Taiwan; and
their American subsidiaries.
• Pinetop-Lakeside
In February 2010, the Antitrust
Unit settled antitrust
claims against the Town of
Pinetop-Lakeside and contractor
V Mountain Construction,
Inc. For more than 14
years, Pinetop-Lakeside, V
Mountain and its predecessor
had restrained trade by entering
into several contracts
for road construction, maintenance
and snow removal
without following the town’s
competitive purchasing and
procurement policies. These
contracts denied taxpayers
the benefits of free and open
competition and denied other
contractors an opportunity to
compete for the town’s road
services business.
As a result of the settlement,
V Mountain paid a
civil penalty of $10,000. The
town paid $5,000 as reimbursement
of the Attorney
General’s investigative costs.
The town also agreed to
obtain additional procurement
training for employees and
procure special audits of its
purchasing activities
Protecting Seniors
• State v. Consumer Benefits
Research Group
On June 30, 2009, the State
filed a lawsuit against Mesabased
Consumer Benefits
Group (CBG) for deceptively
soliciting seniors by phone
to sell an “Identity Fraud
Program.” Mostly elderly
consumers told the Attorney
General that CBG telemarketers
badgered them during
the high-pressure calls to sell
identity theft protection. By
posing as “investigators” CBG
telemarketers scared seniors
Attorney General Goddard speaks with an
attendee at the Senior Anti-Crime University
in Sun City West in January.
into thinking their identity was
at risk and that they needed
to spend $388 for the “Identify
Theft” program, and then
another $388 for an upgrade.
Litigation is pending
“Government Notice” Scams
Attorney General Goddard went
after several companies for deceiving
consumers into thinking
the companies were part of the
government or offering services
required by law. Representative
cases include:
• Property Tax Review Board
Goddard filed suit against
Michael McConville, a California
resident, and Property
Tax Review Board for sending
thousands of letters to
Arizona consumers falsely
stating that consumers could
reduce their property tax
assessments through appeal
by paying a $189 “process-
Arizona Attorney General Terry Goddard • 2010 Annual Report
29