The lawsuit alleges that, beginning in January 2020 and continuing through today (the “class period”), the defendants participated in a coordinated effort to increase prices for residential and commercial HVAC equipment. The complaint characterizes these actions as a form of price-fixing, asserting that manufacturers engaged in a series of “frequent and repeated secret meetings, information sharing, communications, and public signaling [that] drove the prices of HVAC equipment to historic levels.” 

Price Increases 

Manufacturers have publicly attributed price increases in recent years to a range of factors, including supply chain disruptions during the COVID-19 pandemic, rising raw material costs, regulatory changes such as updated efficiency standards, and the phasedown of HFC refrigerants under the AIM Act. However, the plaintiffs contend these factors do not fully explain the scale of price increases since 2020. The complaint argues that the cited cost pressures served as “pretextual justifications, unsupported by the actual data.” For example, it states that the COVID-19 pandemic does not account for the magnitude of HVAC equipment price increases during the class period, noting that the HVAC producer price index (PPI) rose faster than both the consumer price index (CPI) and the PPI for major household appliance manufacturing. 

The complaint also dismisses regulations as a driver of higher equipment costs. It states, “Neither does the new SEER2 energy conservation standards — defendants had, at a minimum, six years to develop compliant HVAC equipment. Finally, the HVAC equipment industry itself led domestic efforts to phase out HFCs, investing billions in the transition and beginning their advocacy over 20 years before the restrictions took effect in 2025.” 

Raising prices simply because a competitor raised theirs is not illegal; what crosses the line is when competitors make an agreement beforehand to raise prices, effectively removing competition. Antitrust law differentiates between “conscious parallelism” (legal) and “agreement/conspiracy” (illegal). The former occurs when competitors in a concentrated market independently adopt similar business strategies by observing or reacting to the actions of their competitors. For a lawsuit to avoid being dismissed, courts require evidence of actions that go beyond parallel behavior. 

The plaintiffs in this lawsuit allege that Trane, Carrier, Daikin, Bosch, Lennox, Rheem, and AAON did indeed agree beforehand to raise prices, and then “fraudulently concealed their conspiracy” through in-person meetings and coded language. 

“Defendants used terms like ‘discipline’ and ‘price realization,’ and spoke of maintaining margins as a priority over competing for market share, to hide the conspiracy’s existence and accomplish the conspiracy’s goals, while also providing reassurance to co-conspirators of their continued commitment to the anticompetitive agreement,” the complaint stated. 

Industry Groups 

Manufacturers are not the only HVAC industry players mentioned in the lawsuit. The complaint also identifies two industry organizations as playing roles in “facilitating the conspiracy.”  

The first is the Air-Conditioning, Heating, and Refrigeration Institute (AHRI), a trade association representing HVAC manufacturers. AHRI provides industry statistics, including shipment reports and data subscription services, to its members. The filing claims that this “extensive sharing of information available only to AHRI members who also agreed to share their own data with their competitors” contributed to coordinated pricing behavior. 

The second is The Air Conditioning, Heating & Refrigeration NEWS, which publishes articles on pricing, price increases, and quarterly public earnings reports from HVAC manufacturers. The complaint alleges that Trane, Carrier, Daikin, Bosch, Lennox, Rheem, and AAON used this coverage in ACHR NEWS as a method to communicate their intentions amongst each other, as well as give their price increases legitimacy. 

“Defendants used ACHR News to signal to one another to perpetuate the conspiracy and communicate their adherence to it,” the complaint said. “Defendants extensively and nearly exclusively relied on ACHR News to immediately publish and disseminate their price increase announcements throughout the Class Period.” 

The complaint also notes that ACHR NEWS staff regularly attended AHRI and other industry conferences and provided coverage of those events. 

The lawsuit also references Heating, Air-conditioning & Refrigeration Distributors International (HARDI), which publishes HVAC market data and industry insights. The complaint states, “while ostensibly set up to support HVAC distributors, it is clear that HARDI provided the defendant-manufacturers with further opportunities to collude. For example, at the 2025 HARDI Annual Conference, a “Supplier Town Hall” was held, “dedicated to Supplier Manufacturers!” 

In filing this lawsuit, the plaintiff is seeking monetary damages, “as well as equitable relief, on behalf of all entities and persons who purchased HVAC equipment in the United States between January 1, 2020, through the present manufactured by a defendant for end use in a residential or commercial building.” The plaintiff argues that purchasers paid inflated prices as a result of a “price-fixing conspiracy” among manufacturers. 

Manufacturers named in the lawsuit have not yet publicly responded to the specific claims outlined in the complaint.