Liquid Aluminum Sulfate Antitrust Litigation Settlement
Last verified September 5, 2026Source: law-firm:keller-rohrbackHow ClaimWatch verifies cases
This settlement is closed to new claims. You can still see what it was about and follow the case in court below. Looking for money you can still claim? Browse open settlements →
What happened
Manufacturers of liquid aluminum sulfate (Alum) allegedly engaged in a conspiracy to artificially inflate prices from 1997 through at least February 2011. This antitrust violation caused municipalities and their taxpayers to overpay millions of dollars for Alum used in municipal water treatment.
Do you qualify?
Municipalities and other direct purchasers of liquid aluminum sulfate who purchased the product during the conspiracy period from 1997 through February 2011, including the cities of Spokane, Tacoma, Sacramento, Everett, Scottsdale, Mesa, and Phoenix.
How to file
Final approval of settlements with all defendants has been granted. For complete information about the settlements, claim procedures, and to review court documents, visit the court-authorized settlement website at www.liquidaluminumdirectsettlement.com.
Common questions
- Is the Liquid Aluminum Sulfate Antitrust Litigation Settlement notice real, or a scam?
- Claims are filed at liquidaluminumdirectsettlement.com. Filing a class action claim is always free — no legitimate settlement charges you to claim, and no administrator will ask for payment, a gift card, or your full Social Security number by email or text. If a notice asks for any of those, it is not from the administrator. When in doubt, ignore the link you were sent and go to the official settlement website directly.
- When will payments from the Liquid Aluminum Sulfate Antitrust Litigation Settlement be sent?
- Class action payouts typically take 12 to 24 months after the claim deadline, and longer if the settlement is appealed. Payments cannot be issued until the court grants final approval and any appeals are resolved.
New to class actions?
This summary was generated from public settlement documents and may contain errors. Confirm eligibility, deadlines, and payment terms on the official settlement website before filing. ClaimWatch is not a law firm and this is not legal advice. Filing a claim is free.
More consumer products settlements
View all →Schnucks Markets Sales Tax Rewards Settlement
Schnucks Markets allegedly charged customers sales tax on the full price of purchases before applying rewards-point discounts, rather than calculating tax on the discounted total after points were applied. Plaintiff Sharon Garcia claimed this violated Missouri tax law when she purchased items using reward points that entitled her to a $3 discount but was still charged tax on the full pre-discount amount. Schnucks denies wrongdoing but has agreed to change its tax calculation practices by March 31, 2027.
Up to $7
Dr. Squatch Natural Products Class Action Settlement
Dr. Squatch represented that certain of its shampoo, conditioner, deodorant, soap, and other personal care products were natural even though they contained ingredients the plaintiffs allege were synthetic. Dr. Squatch has denied the allegations and maintains the products were properly labeled. The company agreed to settle the lawsuit without admitting wrongdoing or liability to avoid the burden and expense of further litigation.
Pro rata share based on the number of valid claim forms submitted
Service Spot Settlement - ParkOn.com and CheapAirportParking.org Reservation Fee
Service Spot, LLC and TripGate LLC allegedly failed to properly disclose a mandatory Reservation Fee for online bookings on ParkOn.com and CheapAirportParking.org in violation of California's Honest Pricing Law. The defendants deny they violated any law but agreed to settle to avoid further litigation costs.
Pro rata portion of the Settlement Fund based on the total amount of processing fees paid
Kroger Prescription Drug Insurance Settlement
Kroger is accused of failing to consider its Rx Savings Club or Health Savings Club prices when determining usual and customary ("U&C") prices it submitted to insurance companies for customer prescription claims. Kroger denies any wrongdoing and maintains it correctly reported its retail prices as U&C prices. The court has not decided the case on its merits.
Payments calculated based on the amount a claimant paid for prescription drugs from Kroger using insurance during the settlement class period