[geebee]

I'm trying to understand these issues better, but my initial inclination would be to treat class actions similar to antitrust lawsuits. Individuals can bring anti-trust lawsuits for specific damages, but my impression is that broad antitrust lawsuits are generally initiated by federal/state attorneys general.

This makes sense when the plaintiffs are, for example, "everyone who buys gas". But in this particular "no hire" case, I do think that the the harm done here is pretty extensive - it may well extend to people who never applied for positions at these companies. Obviously, you were harmed if you were specifically prevented from switching jobs, and you were harmed if you were were passive but specifically never contact about a new position. But what if you might have had a chance to move up in a company if someone else had moved on to a new job at a different company? What if your own staff was aggressively targeted by a recruiter who would otherwise have tried to hire from google or apple, because your engineers were fair game and there's weren't as part of a secret collusive (and absolutely illegal) agreement? What if you applied for a job at these places and might have had a crack at if if there had been more turnover?

Collusion is very, very damaging to a free economy. This is broad and far reaching. I think this might be better handled by an atty general who doesn't stand to profit personally from the outcome.

[bradleyjg]

I tend to agree with you (see my sister comment about regulators regulating) but it's worth noting that in this particular case the Justice Department did pursue the case but agreed to the most ridiculous settlement terms possible (the companies in question promised to follow the law for five years -- something they were already obligated to do.)

Edit: DOJ Press release http://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/2010/September/10-at-1076.html

[geebee]

I wasn't aware of that, though now that you mention it, I do have a vague memory about this. Would you post a link?