3 ms·

Interesting, but too long for me to read right now. Does anyone know why De Beers seems to be exempt from U.S. anti-trust laws?

• dmm 16y ago
  They aren't a US company.
  • gojomo 16y ago
    They operate in the US; they are subject to US law.
    • anamax 16y ago
      Their US operations are subject to US law. They can stay off-shore, sell diamonds to US companies, and ship them in. Unless the US govt is willing to stop US companies from buying or confiscates the shipments or tha payments, there's not much that the US govt can do.
• gojomo 16y ago
  There's a longstanding case still bouncing around the court system: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_Beers_Diamonds_Antitrust_Litigation http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_Beers_Diamonds_Antitrust_Lit...
  • illumin8 16y ago
    "The settlement provides $295 million to purchasers of diamonds and diamond jewelry, including $130 million to consumers." Does anyone think it seems like a very low number? Just $130 million for consumers, considering the cartel has been operating for decades and brought in billions?
    • gojomo 16y ago
      Sounds low to me. And the agreement not to monopolize sounds flimsy. But I'm sure the class action legal firms did just fine.
      • gwern 16y ago
        It's really low, when you remember that antitrust violations carry triple damages, not just single. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Triple_Damages http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Triple_Damages)