Amended Complaint Filed in HVAC Price-Fixing Lawsuit (July 2026)

Key takeaways

What HVAC contractors need to know about the July 2026 amended complaint in one place.

A 191-page consolidated amended complaint, dated July 10, 2026, names Bosch, Trane, Carrier, Daikin, Lennox, Rheem, and AAON as defendants in a federal antitrust case alleging coordinated HVAC equipment price increases beginning in 2020.
Plaintiffs — 39 indirect purchasers, primarily homeowners — allege the manufacturers violated Section 1 of the Sherman Antitrust Act by coordinating prices rather than setting them independently.
The amended complaint adds a 'Continuing Violation' section arguing the alleged conduct has not stopped and continues to affect what homeowners pay for HVAC equipment today.
New allegations introduce subscription-based pricing intelligence services as a potential mechanism that could have enabled manufacturers to align prices without direct communication.
The seven named defendants collectively control an estimated 92% of the U.S. HVAC market, valued at approximately $31.26 billion in 2024.

What the amended complaint actually adds

The original complaint in Berg v. Robert Bosch, LLC, et al. (No. 2:26-cv-10949) was filed March 20, 2026, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan and assigned to Judge Susan K. DeClercq. Lead plaintiff Alyssa Berg, a Minnesota resident, filed on behalf of a proposed class of indirect purchasers — mostly homeowners who bought HVAC systems through dealers and contractors over the last six years.

The July 10 amended complaint does not restart the case. It expands the original allegations with additional factual examples designed to support the argument that defendants engaged in unlawful coordination rather than making independent pricing decisions. ACHR News

Two additions stand out:

Continuing Violation section. Plaintiffs argue the alleged conduct is ongoing — not a historical episode that ended when supply chains normalized after the pandemic. That framing matters because it affects the time window for potential damages.

Pricing intelligence services. The amended complaint introduces new claims involving subscription-based data aggregation platforms. Plaintiffs allege these services gave manufacturers access to detailed pricing and market intelligence that could have made it easier for competitors to align prices without directly communicating. Defendants have not been found liable; the case remains in its early stages.

The regulatory motive argument: refrigerants, efficiency standards, and COVID

One of the more detailed new sections of the amended complaint argues that defendants shared a 'common motive to conspire.' The complaint states directly: 'Defendants had a common motive to develop and charge higher prices for new machines that complied with regulatory requirements, while ceasing production of old machines.' ACHR News

The factors plaintiffs cite — the COVID-19 pandemic, the ongoing transition to lower global-warming-potential refrigerants, and updated federal energy efficiency standards — did create real, well-documented cost pressures across the HVAC industry. Equipment lines had to be redesigned, older refrigerant-based systems phased out, and production timelines compressed.

What remains disputed in court is whether manufacturers used those legitimate pressures as cover for coordinated pricing decisions or responded to the same cost environment independently. Plaintiffs are seeking treble damages — triple the proven harm — plus attorneys' fees, as permitted under antitrust law for Sherman Act violations.

Why this matters for HVAC contractors

HVAC contractors are not defendants in this case. The lawsuit targets manufacturers. But contractors absorbed the equipment price increases at the center of the dispute — higher replacement-unit costs, compressed install margins, and customers who pushed back hard on quotes.

If plaintiffs ultimately prevail, indirect purchaser class actions sometimes produce settlement funds that can reach end users, not only the named plaintiffs. That outcome is far off and uncertain. What is not uncertain is that the regulatory pressures cited in the complaint — the refrigerant transition, updated efficiency standards — are continuing into 2026 and beyond. Equipment prices are unlikely to fall sharply regardless of how the litigation resolves.

For HVAC contractors, the practical implication is blunt: margin pressure is not going away. When equipment costs are elevated and customers are price-sensitive, every job you fail to close because of a missed call or a slow follow-up is a larger relative loss than it was five years ago. A $1,800 AC service call that goes to voicemail while a competitor picks up is a harder hole to dig out of when your per-unit cost has risen and your margin is thinner.

The lawsuit also reinforces where contractors do and do not have leverage. Pricing leverage sits with manufacturers. Lead conversion — answering every call, following up within minutes — is the lever contractors actually control. That gap between a call answered and a call lost to voicemail is where the real margin lives right now.

Equipment prices are likely to stay elevated through the refrigerant transition period regardless of this lawsuit's outcome.
Contractor margins are under pressure from the supply side (equipment costs) and the demand side (price-sensitive customers).
Lead conversion rate — answering every call, following up fast — is the single most controllable revenue lever when costs are high.
Every missed call represents a larger dollar loss today than before 2020-era price increases compressed install margins.

Frequently asked

Who are the defendants in the HVAC price-fixing lawsuit?

The amended complaint names seven manufacturers: Bosch, Trane, Carrier, Daikin, Lennox, Rheem, and AAON. Together they are alleged to control roughly 92% of the U.S. HVAC market. All allegations remain unproven — no court has ruled on the merits and the case is in its early stages.

What are plaintiffs actually alleging?

Plaintiffs — 39 indirect purchasers, primarily homeowners — allege the named manufacturers violated Section 1 of the Sherman Antitrust Act by coordinating price increases on HVAC equipment starting in 2020. The amended complaint argues this coordination was facilitated in part by shared pricing intelligence services and that the alleged conduct is still ongoing.

Does this lawsuit affect HVAC contractors directly?

Contractors are not defendants. The suit targets equipment manufacturers. However, contractors absorbed the equipment price increases at the center of the dispute through higher unit costs and tighter install margins. Whether any settlement funds eventually reach contractors or homeowners who purchased through contractors depends entirely on how the litigation resolves — a process that typically takes years.

What is the Sherman Antitrust Act and why is it relevant here?

Section 1 of the Sherman Antitrust Act prohibits agreements among competitors that unreasonably restrain trade. Plaintiffs allege the named HVAC manufacturers — who normally compete with each other — coordinated on pricing rather than setting prices independently. If proven, that would violate the Act. Successful plaintiffs in Sherman Act cases can recover treble (triple) damages plus attorneys' fees.

What should HVAC contractors watch for as this case develops?

Watch for a ruling on class certification, which will determine whether the case proceeds as a class action on behalf of all indirect purchasers. Also watch for any manufacturer settlements, which could produce funds accessible to homeowners and potentially others in the distribution chain. In the meantime, the refrigerant transitions and efficiency-standard changes cited in the complaint as cost drivers are real and ongoing — equipment prices are not expected to drop significantly in the near term regardless of how the litigation ends.