In In re: TFT-LCD Flat Panel Antitrust Litigation, Northern District of California Judge Susan Ilston, denied plaintiffs’ motion for partial summary judgment, ruling that Florida law allows the defendants to use the “pass-on” defense, in a multidistrict litigation over price-fixing on liquid crystal display panels. The suit, which was brought in October 2010, against AU Optronics Corp., Hitachi Displays Ltd., LG Electronics Inc. and others, stems from a 2006 investigation by U.S Department of Justice, European, Japanese and South Korean antitrust regulators that led to criminal penalties against LCD manufacturers. In the present suit, plaintiffs field a motion for partial summary judgment, arguing that the “pass-on” defense, in which a group claims the distributors passed on any price overcharges they faced to their customers and avoided suffering damages, is not available to defendants in this case. The court denied plaintiffs’ motion, holding that there is no clear Florida case law precluding the pass-on defense under the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act, and the applicability of the consequential damages/lost profits cases, in other contexts, is unclear. The court further held that Florida courts have not addressed this issue or how ‘loss’ or ‘actual damages’ would be calculated in the context of price-fixing cases under the FDUTPA.