DETROIT, Michigan — Major HVAC equipment manufacturers are seeking a dismissal of consolidated antitrust lawsuits alleging a conspiracy to raise equipment prices beginning in January 2020.

In a joint motion filed by Trane Technologies PLC and Trane U.S. Inc. on behalf of all defendants on Oct. 9, the manufacturers argue that the plaintiffs have failed to present sufficient evidence of an agreement to fix prices and have mischaracterized independent pricing decisions as a conspiracy.

The defendants cite several factors they say contributed to equipment price increases, including COVID-19-related supply-chain disruptions, new SEER2 efficiency requirements, the transition to lower-GWP refrigerants under the American Innovation and Manufacturing (AIM) Act, and tariffs affecting steel, aluminum and copper.

The motion also challenges the plaintiffs' reliance on similar price increases, industry information sharing, public pricing announcements, and executives' comments about pricing during earnings calls. The manufacturers contend that these activities do not establish an illegal agreement and that differences in the timing and magnitude of price adjustments support their position that companies made independent business decisions.

The consolidated lawsuits allege that HVAC manufacturers coordinated price increases and caused purchasers to pay more for equipment than they would have in a competitive market. Plaintiffs cite industry communications and pricing patterns as evidence of the alleged conspiracy.

The case Berg v. Robert Bosch, naming Bosch, Carrier, Trane, Lennox, Daikin, Rheem, and AAON as defendants, was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan on March 20. Three additional federal antitrust lawsuits were filed in April. 

The manufacturers are asking the court to dismiss claims brought on behalf of direct purchasers, commercial indirect purchasers, and end-user indirect purchasers. The motion does not resolve the merits of the allegations, and a court ruling on the request will determine whether the challenged claims can proceed.

Mitsubishi Electric Trane HVAC US LLC filed its own motions to dismiss, citing that the plaintiffs have not demonstrated that the company belongs in the lawsuit. METUS argues that the complaints specifically exclude ductless mini-split systems from the HVAC equipment market at the center of the alleged price-fixing conspiracy, while METUS primarily distributes variable-speed mini-split, ducted mini-split, and variable refrigerant flow (VRF) systems. The company contends that these products differ from traditional unitary HVAC systems in technology, pricing, distribution, and competitive landscape, meaning the plaintiffs have not shown that they suffered an injury attributable to METUS.

METUS also argues that the complaints fail to provide specific facts connecting the company to the alleged conspiracy. According to the motion, plaintiffs do not detail METUS's price-change announcements, participation in pricing-monitoring tools, or involvement in Air-Conditioning, Heating, and Refrigeration Institute (AHRI) committees. The company contends that references to Mitsubishi representatives attending industry conferences and participating in a panel do not establish an agreement to fix prices. METUS further disputes the plaintiffs' characterization of it as part of a single enterprise controlled by Trane Technologies, emphasizing that METUS is a 50/50 joint venture between Trane Technologies and Mitsubishi Electric US Inc.

AAON also filed its own motion to dismiss all charges, arguing that the plaintiffs' theory of coordinated price signaling is incompatible with AAON's business model, which centers on premium commercial HVAC equipment that is highly configurable or custom-built to customer specifications.

In its motion, AAON claims that unlike standardized, interchangeable HVAC products, AAON's equipment is often priced individually based on project requirements rather than through uniform list prices. That distinction, they contend, makes it difficult for competitors to use public price announcements to coordinate pricing or monitor one another's compliance with an alleged agreement. The motion also argues that AAON did not raise prices in 2020, used a rolling 1% monthly increase for certain commercial equipment, did not announce price increases in 2023 or 2024, and applied a temporary surcharge in 2025 in response to tariffs. The defendants also cite AAON's reported production and capacity expansion as inconsistent with the allegation that manufacturers coordinated to restrict supply. 

The court has not yet ruled on the pending motions to dismiss. The next steps will depend on the judge’s consideration of the defendants’ arguments and any responses from the plaintiffs. The judge may grant or deny the motions in whole or in part, potentially allowing some or all claims to proceed, or dismiss claims against specific defendants. If the case moves forward, the parties would continue with pretrial proceedings, which may include discovery and further motions as the litigation progresses.