Homeowners, contractors and distributors who bought ducted heating and air conditioning equipment made by Bosch, Carrier, Daikin, Lennox, Rheem, Trane or AAON since January 1, 2020 may be covered by proposed class actions alleging the manufacturers coordinated price increases. No class has been certified and there is nothing to file yet; the manufacturers’ motion to dismiss is pending.
Allegations Only · No Settlement Yet
This article describes proposed class action complaints. The statements below are unproven allegations. None of the HVAC manufacturers named in the case has been found liable, every one of them disputes the claims, there is no certified class, and there is nothing to claim at this time. This page is informational and is not legal advice.
What Is This About?
Seven groups of heating, ventilation and air conditioning manufacturers — Bosch, Carrier, Daikin, Lennox, Rheem, Trane and AAON, along with a number of their subsidiaries and affiliates — face consolidated antitrust class actions in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan. The case is In re HVAC Equipment Antitrust Litigation, No. 2:26-cv-10949, assigned to U.S. District Judge Susan K. DeClercq.The first complaint was filed March 20, 2026, on behalf of an end user who bought HVAC equipment through the distribution chain. Contractors and other businesses filed similar suits in April and May 2026, and the court consolidated them under the lead case on May 15, 2026. The plaintiffs claim the manufacturers agreed, starting in 2020, to raise and hold up the prices of ducted HVAC equipment in violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act and state laws. The manufacturers deny any agreement, and on October 9, 2026, they jointly asked the court to dismiss all three operative complaints. As of October 28, 2026, the court had not ruled on that motion.
Free settlement alerts
Get notified when new class actions open to claims
Join thousands of readers who get the latest class action settlements you may qualify for — delivered straight to your inbox.
Who Would Be in the Proposed Classes
In July 2026 the plaintiffs reorganized into three groups, each proposing its own class of buyers who purchased covered HVAC equipment from January 1, 2020 onward. According to the defendants’ summary of the pleadings in their October 9 motion:- Direct purchasers — businesses that bought HVAC equipment directly from one or more of the defendant manufacturers, such as distributors and some contractors. This group sues under the federal Sherman Act.
- Commercial indirect purchasers — businesses that bought the equipment from someone other than the manufacturer for the purpose of resale, typically HVAC contractors and dealers. This group pleads federal and state-law claims.
- End-user indirect purchasers — people and entities that bought the equipment indirectly for their own use in the United States, such as homeowners who paid a contractor for a new furnace or central air system. This group also pleads federal and state-law claims.
The direct purchaser group filed a consolidated class complaint on July 10, 2026. The end-user group filed an amended complaint the same day, and the commercial indirect purchaser group filed an amended complaint that day as well, followed by a corrected version on August 28, 2026. On June 26, 2026, the court appointed interim co-lead class counsel and a steering committee for the direct purchaser plaintiffs.
These are proposed classes only. A judge decides whether to certify a class later in a case, and none of the three has been certified.
What the Lawsuits Allege
The complaints describe a market dominated by a handful of manufacturers and claim the defendants used three channels to coordinate, as the defendants’ motion summarizes them: sharing non-public competitive data, publicly signaling price increases, and coordinating limits on manufacturing output.On data sharing, the plaintiffs point to a statistical program run by the Air-Conditioning, Heating, and Refrigeration Institute (AHRI), the industry trade group, which they describe as a give-to-get exchange. According to ACHR News, the amended end-user complaint also alleges that subscription data services, including Pricefx and Convergence Data, enabled detailed pricing information to circulate. AHRI is not a defendant.
On signaling, the complaints cite executives’ comments on earnings calls and at investor conferences, along with price-increase announcements reported in the HVAC trade press. The plaintiffs also cite statements by some manufacturers between May 2025 and February 2026 about managing inventory as residential demand softened, which they characterize as coordinated output restraint.
The first complaint relies on a regression analysis that it says shows HVAC equipment prices about 8% above competitive levels during the class period. The plaintiffs seek damages, which the Sherman Act trebles if proven, along with injunctive relief and attorneys’ fees. No court has found that any overcharge occurred.
Which Companies and Brands Are Named
The defendants’ joint motion counts 23 separate corporate defendants, which the plaintiffs group into seven families. The first complaint lists brands sold by each family, including:- Bosch — Bosch, York, Coleman, Luxaire and Hitachi, among others (defendant Bosch Home Comfort was formerly Johnson Controls-Hitachi Air Conditioning North America)
- Carrier — Carrier, Bryant, Payne, Tempstar and Heil, among others
- Daikin — Daikin, Goodman and Amana
- Lennox — Lennox, plus Armstrong Air, AirEase, Ducane and Concord through its Allied Air subsidiary
- Rheem — Rheem, Ruud, WeatherKing and Sure Comfort
- Trane — Trane, American Standard, RunTru, Ameristar and Oxbox
- AAON — commercial rooftop units and related equipment, including its BASX subsidiary
Mitsubishi Electric Trane HVAC US, a 50/50 joint venture between Mitsubishi Electric and Trane Technologies, is also named. In its 10-Q quarterly report filed October 28, 2026, Lennox International described the case as one in which seven HVAC equipment manufacturers and certain affiliates, including Lennox, were named as defendants.
What the Manufacturers Say
All of the defendants dispute the claims. In the joint motion to dismiss filed October 9, 2026, the manufacturers argue that the complaints describe ordinary, independent business decisions rather than an agreement. According to the motion, the defendants raised prices at different times, by different amounts and on different products, and some did not raise prices at all in certain years. They argue that following a competitor’s public price increase in a concentrated market is lawful, and that the executives’ remarks were routine disclosures to investors.The motion also points to explanations for higher prices that it says appear in the complaints themselves: supply-chain disruption from the COVID-19 pandemic, the AIM Act’s phasedown of hydrofluorocarbon refrigerants, the SEER2 energy-efficiency standards that took effect in January 2023, and tariffs on steel, aluminum and copper beginning in 2025. Separately, the defendants argue that several of the state-law claims brought by the indirect purchaser groups fail under the laws of particular states.
Several defendants filed their own motions as well:
- AAON argues that the complaints themselves describe it as a maker of highly customized, configurable equipment rather than interchangeable commodity products, so the plaintiffs’ price-signaling theory cannot apply to it.
- Mitsubishi Electric Trane HVAC US argues that it distributes ductless mini-splits, a product the complaints expressly exclude, so the court lacks jurisdiction over the claims against it.
- Daikin Industries, Ltd., the Japanese parent, moved on October 6, 2026, to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction.
- The Daikin defendants moved on October 8, 2026, to stay the end-user indirect purchaser claims against them pending arbitration, filing product registration and warranty records with the motion.
Outside court, Carrier told Facilities Dive in May 2026 that it denies what it called baseless allegations and will fight the lawsuit vigorously, and Trane said it strongly disputes the allegations. Lennox’s 10-Q says the company disputes the allegations, plans to vigorously defend itself, and cannot yet estimate any possible loss.
What Happens Next
Judge DeClercq will decide whether the complaints state a plausible claim against each defendant. The defendants requested oral argument, and no ruling had been entered as of October 28, 2026. A May 15, 2026 stipulated order addressed a discovery stay while the pleadings are tested.If any claims survive, the case would move into discovery and, later, a contested request for class certification. If the motions are granted, the plaintiffs could seek permission to amend. Any settlement would require court approval and notice to class members before anything could be claimed. There is no settlement website or claim form for this case.
Questions
Is there an HVAC price-fixing settlement to claim?
No. As of October 28, 2026, the HVAC equipment price-fixing cases had produced no settlement, no fund, no claim form and no certified class. The manufacturers deny the allegations and have asked the court to dismiss the complaints.
Does the case cover ductless mini-split systems?
No. The complaints define the products at issue as ducted HVAC equipment and expressly exclude ductless mini-splits. Mitsubishi Electric Trane HVAC US relies on that exclusion in its separate motion to dismiss, arguing it distributes mini-splits.
Why do the manufacturers say prices went up?
In their October 9, 2026 joint motion to dismiss, the defendants attribute the increases to independent responses to COVID-19 supply-chain disruption, the AIM Act phasedown of HFC refrigerants, the SEER2 energy-efficiency standards that took effect in 2023, and tariffs on steel, aluminum and copper beginning in 2025.
What is the Daikin arbitration motion about?
On October 8, 2026, the Daikin defendants asked the court to pause the end-user indirect purchaser claims against them pending arbitration, filing product registration and warranty records with the motion. The court had not ruled on it as of October 28, 2026.
How much do the plaintiffs say buyers were overcharged?
The first complaint, filed March 20, 2026, cites a regression analysis that it says shows an overcharge of about 8%. The defendants call that analysis conclusory and say it identifies no methodology or data sources. No court has made any finding about overcharges.
Sources
- Court docket: In re HVAC Equipment Antitrust Litigation, No. 2:26-cv-10949 (E.D. Mich.) — CourtListener
- Defendants’ joint motion to dismiss (ECF No. 178, October 9, 2026)
- Original class action complaint (ECF No. 1, March 20, 2026)
- Lennox International Form 10-Q for the quarter ended September 30, 2026 — SEC EDGAR
- HVAC manufacturers face second suit over price-fixing allegation — Facilities Dive, May 7, 2026
- Amended complaint filed in HVAC price-fixing lawsuit — ACHR News, July 17, 2026
