LA County Fire Sues Fire Truck Makers Over Antitrust Mergers

Lawsuit alleges mergers have doubled prices and delayed deliveries of critical fire equipment.

Feb. 27, 2026 at 12:20am

Got story updates? Submit your updates here. ›

Los Angeles County is suing a private equity firm and several fire truck manufacturers for alleged antitrust violations and unfair competition. The lawsuit claims that mergers and acquisitions in the fire truck and equipment industry have shrunk the market, leading to doubled prices and delayed deliveries of vital fire apparatus needed by the LA County Fire Department.

Why it matters

The lawsuit highlights growing concerns about consolidation and lack of competition in the fire truck and equipment industry, which is impacting the ability of fire departments to acquire the vehicles and gear they need to protect public safety, especially as climate change increases fire risks in the region.

The details

The county is suing American Industrial Partners, a private equity firm, as well as fire truck makers REV Group, Oshkosh Corporation, and Boise Mobile Equipment. The lawsuit alleges the companies have engaged in anticompetitive practices, such as Oshkosh requiring customers to only purchase proprietary parts from its subsidiary Pierce Manufacturing even when cheaper alternatives are available. This has led to significant price hikes, with fire engines that used to cost $600,000 now costing over $1.1 million, and hook-and-ladder trucks rising from $1 million to $2.1 million.

  • The lawsuit was filed on February 12, 2026.
  • In a budget meeting on February 17, 2026, LA County Fire Chief Anthony Marrone said delivery times for fire equipment have doubled or tripled over the past five years.

The players

LA County Fire Department

The fire department serving Los Angeles County, which is bringing the antitrust lawsuit against the fire truck and equipment manufacturers.

American Industrial Partners

A private equity firm named in the lawsuit for allegedly engaging in anticompetitive practices through mergers and acquisitions in the fire truck industry.

REV Group

A fire truck manufacturer named in the lawsuit for allegedly engaging in anticompetitive practices.

Oshkosh Corporation

A fire truck manufacturer named in the lawsuit for allegedly requiring customers to only purchase proprietary parts from its subsidiary, which leads to significant overcharges.

Boise Mobile Equipment

A fire truck manufacturer named in the lawsuit for allegedly engaging in anticompetitive practices.

Got photos? Submit your photos here. ›

What they’re saying

“These companies have driven up prices, delayed deliveries to unprecedented lengths, and forced our communities to shoulder the cost. Fire trucks are essential to protecting public safety, and we are taking action to hold these companies accountable, recover overcharges, and ensure fair competition so taxpayers are never left paying more for the tools our first responders need.”

— Hilda Solis, First District Supervisor and Board Chair (Press-Telegram)

“A fire engine with a pump and water used to cost about $600,000 and they are upward around $1.1 million. A hook-and-ladder truck used to be about $1 million and they are now up around $2.1 million.”

— Anthony Marrone, LA County Fire Chief (Press-Telegram)

“The LA County Fire Department has experienced dramatic price increases and long delays in receiving delivery of fire trucks. These market conditions strain our budget and are a wasteful diversion of public funds needed to support our mission of protecting lives, environment and property.”

— Anthony Marrone, LA County Fire Chief (Press-Telegram)

What’s next

The judge in the case will decide whether to allow the lawsuit to proceed and potentially unwind the mergers that are alleged to have violated antitrust laws.

The takeaway

This lawsuit highlights the growing problem of consolidation and lack of competition in critical industries like fire truck manufacturing, which is driving up costs for local governments and straining the budgets of fire departments tasked with protecting public safety. The outcome of this case could set an important precedent for how antitrust laws are applied to address these issues.