of Appeals. Price gouging-related lawsuits during the COVID-19 pandemic In response to the issuance of emergency price gouging regulations, multiple state attorneys general and federal agencies have investigated potential cases of price gouging impacting consumers and agencies. Since regulatory measures vary by state, there is no uniform interpretation of price gouging violations, and it is left to state courts to decide. People of the State of New York v. Hillandale Farms Corporation, 2020 On August 11, 2020, New York Attorney General Letitia James sued Hillandale Farms, one of the largest U.S. egg producers, for allegedly price gouging more than four million cartons of eggs by increasing prices by almost five times during the pandemic. The lawsuit alleges that the price increases were an effort to profit off of higher consumer demand during the pandemic. To settle the lawsuit, Hillandale Farms agreed to donate 1.2 million eggs to New York food banks. The case was dismissed with prejudice. This suit was one of several against egg producers during the pandemic, with the Texas Attorney General suing Cal-Maine Foods, the California Attorney General suing Dakota Layers, and the West Virginia Attorney General suing Dutt & Wagner. Southern District of Mississippi, 2021 A Mississippi businessman purchased scarce personal protective equipment (PPE) including gowns, face shields, and masks through his pharmaceutical wholesale company. An indictment alleges that the business then solicited health care providers, including the U.S. Veteran's Association, to purchase the PPE at excessively inflated prices as part of a $1.8 million scheme. This case was investigated by the FBI, Veteran's Association, and Fraud Section of the United States Department of Justice. The charges brought were conspiracy to commit wire fraud and mail fraud, conspiracy to defraud the United States, conspiracy to commit hoarding of designated scarce materials, and hoarding of designated scarce materials. Opposition to laws against price gouging In a 2012 survey of leading American economists by the Initiative on Global Markets, only 8 percent agreed with a proposal to prohibit "unconscionably excessive" price gouging during natural disasters in Connecticut; 51 percent disagreed with the proposal, 15 percent were uncertain, and 8 percent had no opinion. The economists opposing the proposal argued that such legislation would lead to a misallocation of resources and to lower supply and greater scarcity of the resources, or that the proposal in question was vague. According to the theory of neoclassical economics, anti-price gouging laws prevent