A proposed $32 million class action settlement targets major consumer-telescope manufacturers Synta and Ningbo Sunny (and related entities) over claims that the U.S. telescope market was distorted for years. The lawsuit alleges a long-running scheme dating back to 2005 to fix or stabilize prices, rig bids, and carve up customers or sales channels—conduct that, if true, would reduce competition and leave hobbyists, families, and schools paying more for popular brands such as Celestron, Orion, Sky-Watcher, Zhumell, and Meade. The settlement class generally includes U.S. consumers who bought qualifying telescopes from retailers or distributors between January 1, 2005, and September 6, 2023, with claims submitted through the settlement site by May 20, 2025, and with “no proof required” at filing (though documentation can be requested later). The case was filed because U.S. antitrust law treats agreements among competitors to set prices, allocate markets, or rig bids as especially harmful “hardcore” restraints on trade; the complaint cites the Sherman Act and Clayton Act alongside various state antitrust and consumer-protection statutes and unjust enrichment theories. Its significance is twofold: it seeks compensation for alleged overcharges across a long time period, and it signals that even niche consumer product categories can face high-stakes scrutiny when a small number of manufacturers supply much of the market. More broadly, it fits a familiar pattern seen in other price-fixing and market-allocation cases—from electronics components to household goods—where class actions often follow alleged coordination in concentrated supply chains and are shaped by the same regulatory framework of federal antitrust enforcement, state “little FTC” consumer laws, and court-approved settlement processes that balance payouts against administrative costs and attorneys’ fees.