-
Second Circuit Affirms Defunct Soccer League’s Antitrust Loss, Denies New Trial
06/09/2026On May 19, 2026, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit denied the now-defunct North American Soccer League’s bid for a new trial after a jury rejected its claims, concluding that plaintiff failed to prove a relevant antitrust market affected by the alleged conduct of defendants. North American Soccer League LLC v. U.S. Soccer Federation Inc., case number 25-1225. The Second Circuit affirmed the lower court’s judgment for Major League Soccer and the United States Soccer Federation. Plaintiff had accused the country’s premier soccer league and the sport’s governing body of rigging the league-sanctioning system to exclude it from the top tiers of U.S. men’s professional soccer. The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York denied plaintiff’s request for a new trial, and the appellate court affirmed both the denial of a new trial and an earlier decision partially granting defendants summary judgment on the grounds that league participation rules were not per se unlawful and, thus, required proof of a relevant market and competitive harm in that market.
-
Northern District Of California Dismisses DNA Sequencing Antitrust Claims Against Illumina, With Leave To Amend
06/09/2026On May 28, 2026, Judge Noël Wise of the United States District Court for the Northern District of California granted a motion to dismiss all federal antitrust claims brought by a developer of next-generation DNA sequencing (“NGS”) instruments against a provider allegedly dominating the market for those instruments. The court held that plaintiff failed to plead the foundational elements of its Sherman Act Section 1, Sherman Act Section 2, and Clayton Act Section 3 (exclusive dealing and tying) claims. Element Biosciences, Inc. v. Illumina, Inc., No. 25-cv-08026-NW (N.D. Cal. May 28, 2026).
-
Pennsylvania Court Dismisses Antitrust Claims Against Law School Admission Council
06/09/2026On April 28, 2026, Judge John Murphy of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania granted a motion to dismiss a putative class action, holding that lead plaintiff’s allegations were implausible, and dismissed all three claims without prejudice, allowing plaintiff to file an amended complaint addressing the deficiencies identified in the opinion “if the facts allow.” Risner v. Law School Admission Council, Inc., 2:25-cv-04461-JFM (E.D. Pa. Aug. 4, 2025).Categories: Conspiracy, Market Definition, Monopolization, Motion to Dismiss, Sherman Act § 1, Sherman Act § 2
-
First Jury Verdict For Private Plaintiffs In Pay-For-Delay Litigation Results In $885 Million Award
06/09/2026On May 18, 2026, a jury in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts, in a case before Judge Myong J. Joun, returned a verdict finding a global pharmaceutical company liable for approximately $885 million in damages for allegedly delaying a generic version of the drug Amitiza (lubiprostone) through an anticompetitive pay-for-delay settlement agreement with Par Pharmaceutical, Inc. (“Par”, together with a global pharmaceutical company, the “Defendants”) and the global pharmaceutical company’s collaboration partner, Sucampo Pharmaceuticals, Inc. In re Amitiza Antitrust Litigation, No. 21-11057-MJJ (D. Mass. May 18, 2026). The verdict marks the first time a jury has found a company liable in class-action antitrust litigation challenging a pay-for-delay agreement.
-
Court Denies Northwest MLS’s Bid To Dismiss Compass Antitrust Suit
04/23/2026On March 19, 2026, the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington denied Northwest Multiple Listing Service’s (“NWMLS”) motion to dismiss an antitrust lawsuit brought by Compass, Inc. and Compass Washington, LLC, finding that Compass had plausibly alleged anticompetitive harm stemming from NWMLS's rules requiring member brokerages to list all properties on its platform before marketing them elsewhere. Compass Inc. v. Northwest Multiple Listing Service (W.D. Wash., March 19, 2026).
-
Eastern District of North Carolina Grants Motion To Dismiss Conspiracy Claims In HVAC Refrigerant Market
03/03/2026On February 20, 2026, Judge Terrence Boyle of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina dismissed all claims against Mexichem Fluor, Inc., a producer and distributor of refrigerant products, and its co-defendant, chemicals manufacturer The Chemours Company FC, LLC. FluoroFusion Speciality Chemicals, Inc., et al. v. The Chemours Company FC, LLC, et al., No. 5:24-cv-716-BO-KS (E.D.N.C. Feb. 20, 2026).
-
National Ratings Business Enjoined From Tying Local Radio Ratings To National Data
01/27/2026Following a three-day evidentiary hearing in December 2025, Judge Jeannette Vargas, of the Southern District of New York, has issued a preliminary injunction enjoining defendant from charging a commercially unreasonable rate for its standalone nationwide radio ratings data and enforcing its “Network Policy” set to come into effect this year. Defendant is a major audience-measurement firm that in part supplies local and nationwide radio ratings data used to sell network advertising. Plaintiff, is a U.S. radio broadcast network that operates nearly 400 radio stations across 80+ local markets and sells national ads through a network arm.
-
Ninth Circuit Affirms Defeat Of Heart Rate Data Monopolization Claims
01/21/2026On January 8, 2026, the Ninth Circuit affirmed the decision of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California to grant Apple summary judgment against claims that it monopolized the market for heart rate analysis applications on Apple Watch. AliveCore, Inc. v. Apple, Inc., No. 24-1312 (9th Cir., Jan. 8, 2026).
-
Washington Court Dismisses Antitrust Claims Against Cloud Computing Company
01/13/2026On December 22, 2025, U.S. District Judge Tana Lin of the Western District of Washington dismissed, without prejudice, antitrust claims brought by plaintiff against a cloud computing company (the “Company”).
-
Southern District Of New York Grants Motion To Dismiss Sherman Act Claims In Elite Swimming Case
12/17/2025On November 17, 2025, Judge Jesse Furman of the Southern District of New York granted defendants’ motion to dismiss Sherman Act claims relating to alleged exclusionary and monopolistic conduct in the elite swimming events and athlete services market. Enhanced US LLC v. World Aquatics, et al., No. 25-CV-7096 (JMF) (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 17, 2025).
-
Meta “Holds No Monopoly” And Defeats FTC Antitrust Lawsuit
11/25/2025On November 18, 2025, the United States District Court for the District of Columbia entered judgment for Meta Platforms, Inc. (“Meta”), denying the Federal Trade Commission’s (“FTC”) request for a permanent injunction, holding that the agency failed to prove Meta currently holds monopoly power in the FTC’s alleged relevant product market.
-
California District Court Grants Motion To Dismiss Antitrust Counterclaims Against Telecommunications Companies
11/11/2025On October 31, 2025, the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California granted the motion to dismiss counterclaims brought by Defendant, which alleged that plaintiff telecommunications companies (“Plaintiffs”) violated Sherman Act § 1 and Sherman Act § 2 by using restrictive lease terms, defensive acquisitions, and litigation to maintain monopsony power and suppress prices paid to EBS license holders. T‑Mobile USA, Inc., et al. v. WCO Spectrum, LLC, et al., No. 2:23‑cv‑04347‑AH‑E (C.D. Cal. Oct. 31, 2025).
-
Southern District Of New York Dismisses Eyewear Antitrust Claims
10/06/2025On September 26, 2025, Judge Mary Kay Vyskocil of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York granted eyewear maker EssilorLuxottica’s and related business entities’ (“defendants”) motion to dismiss two proposed class actions suits by direct and indirect purchasers of defendants’ products (“plaintiffs”) accusing defendants of engaging in an anticompetitive scheme to monopolize different U.S. consumer eyewear markets. In re Eyewear Antitrust Litig., No. 1:24-cv-04826 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 26, 2025).
-
No Shot At Victory: Eastern District Of Michigan Dismisses Monopolization Claims Against Energy Shot Company With Prejudice
09/16/2025On August 29, 2025, U.S. District Judge Jonathan Grey of the Eastern District of Michigan dismissed an action against makers of energy shots, with prejudice, holding that plaintiff failed to plausibly state a claim under the Sherman Act, Lanham Act, or for civil conspiracy. Vitamin Energy, Inc. v. Bhargava, et al., No. 24-13125 (E.D. Mich. 2025).
-
Ninth Circuit Dissolves Arrangement Between Rival Vegas Newspapers As Illegal
08/26/2025On August 4, 2025, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit sided with the Las Vegas Review-Journal (“Defendants”) in antitrust litigation with rival Las Vegas newspaper the Las Vegas Sun, Inc. (“Plaintiff”), reversing the district court’s order that had denied a motion to dissolve a stipulated order requiring continued performance by the parties under a Joint Operating Agreement (“JOA”). Las Vegas Sun, Inc. v. Adelson, et al., No. 2:19-cv-01667-ART-MDC (9th Cir. Aug. 4, 2025).
-
Northern District Of Illinois Denies Motion To Dismiss Right-To-Repair Complaint Against A Manufacturer Of Agricultural Equipment
06/24/2025On June 09, 2025, the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois denied a motion to dismiss filed by a manufacturer of agricultural equipment (“Defendant”) in a right-to-repair action motion to dismiss in a right-to-repair action brought by the Federal Trade Commission (“the FTC”), accompanied by five states (Arizona, Illinois, Michigan, Minnesota, and Wisconsin). FTC v. Deere & Co., No. 25-CV-50017 (N.D. Ill. June 9, 2025).
-
Central District Of California Denies Motion To Dismiss Antitrust Claims In Ticketing Class Action
04/29/2025On April 11, 2025, Judge George H. Wu of the United States District Court for the Central District of California issued a ruling on a motion to dismiss filed by Live Nation Entertainment, Inc. and Ticketmaster LLC (“Defendants”) in a class action antitrust lawsuit alleging violations of Section 1 and Section 2 of the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. §§ 1, 2. Heckman, et al. v. Live Nation Ent., Inc., et al., No. 2:22-cv-00047 (C.D. Cal. Apr. 11, 2025).
-
Ninth Circuit Upholds Dismissal Of Antitrust Claims Against Amazon Over Fulfillment Services
04/08/2025On March 20, 2025, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the district court’s dismissal of consumer Plaintiffs’ Sherman Act claims against Defendant Amazon, Inc. (“Amazon”), with prejudice, for lack of antitrust standing. Hogan v. Amazon.com, Inc., No. 24-1893, 2025 WL 1091671 (9th Cir. Mar. 20, 2025). In upholding the trial court’s decision, the Ninth Circuit panel agreed that plaintiffs—consumers who subscribe to Amazon’s “Prime” membership service—did not suffer antitrust injury in the alleged relevant market, namely, the consumer-facing online retail market. Having already twice amended the complaint and failed to plausibly allege antitrust injury, the Circuit Court affirmed the district court’s decision to dismiss the action with prejudice for failure to state a claim.
-
Eastern District Of Pennsylvania Grants Defendants’ Motion To Dismiss Allegations Of Tying Discounted Drug Prices With Third-Party Administrator Use
03/11/2025On February 26, 2025, Judge Mia Perez of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania granted defendants’ motion to dismiss plaintiff’s Sherman Act and Clayton Act claims, though the plaintiff had already conceded the Clayton Act claim during briefing. Brandywine Hospital, LLC v. CVS Health Corp., et al., No. 2:23-cv-01458-MRP (E.D. Pa. Feb. 26, 2025).
-
Ninth Circuit Affirms District Court’s Rejection Of Private State Law Claims Against Qualcomm
03/11/2025On February 25, 2025, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the United States District Court for the Northern District of California’s rejection of unlawful tying, exclusive dealing, and unfair competition claims brought under California state law by cellphone purchasers against cellular modem chip producer Qualcomm over policies related to patent licensing.
-
No Aftermarket, No Case: Northern District Of California Applies Recent Epic v. Apple Precedent To Dismiss Antitrust Suit Before Closing Arguments
02/11/2025On January 28, 2025, U.S. District Judge Araceli Martínez-Olguín granted judgment as a matter of law for defendant Intuitive Surgical, Inc. (“Intuitive” or “defendant”) on all claims brought by plaintiff, Surgical Instruments Service Co. Inc. (“SIS” or “plaintiff”). The Court’s ruling from the bench concluded a three-week jury trial at the eleventh hour before closing arguments. In her ruling, Judge Martínez-Olguín relied on the Ninth Circuit’s recent decision in Epic Games, Inc. v. Apple, Inc., 67 F.4th 946, 977 (9th Cir. 2023) to conclude that SIS could not prove an antitrust aftermarket and therefore could not proceed with its antitrust claims.
-
Tenth Circuit Rejects Surgical Assistants’ Appeal In Surgical Credentials Monopolization Case
02/04/2025On January 21, 2025, the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the United States District Court for the District of Colorado’s dismissal of the Association of Surgical Assistants’ (ASA) challenge to the National Board of Surgical Technology and Surgical Assisting’s (NBSTSA) certification regime. Ass’n of Surgical Assistants v. Nat’l Bd. of Surgical Technology and Surgical Assisting; Association of Surgical Technologists, No. 23-01344 (10th Cir., Jan. 21, 2025).
-
Illinois District Court Dismisses Antitrust Case Alleging Monopolization Of Transportation Services For Canadian Crude Oil In Chicago
01/31/2025On January 13, 2025, the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois granted defendant’s motion to dismiss plaintiff’s claim that it monopolized the market for “Canadian crude oil transportation services in the Chicago area” in violation of Section 2 of the Sherman Act and similar Illinois statutes, which require harmonization with federal laws.
-
Game On: NBA Legend’s Monopolization Challenge Against NASCAR To Proceed
01/22/2025On January 10, 2025, Judge Kenneth D. Bell of the United States Court for the Western District of North Carolina denied NASCAR’s motion to dismiss stock car racing team 23XI Racing’s (“plaintiff”) monopolization case against NASCAR (“defendant”). 2311 Racing LLC, et al. v. Nat. Ass’n for Stock Car Auto Racing, LLC, et al., 3:24-cv-00886 (W.D.N.C. Jan. 10, 2025).
-
Game Developers Win Class Certification In Valve Antitrust Case
12/11/2024On November 25th, 2024, U.S. Western District Court of Washington Judge Jamal N. Whitehead certified a class of approximately 32,000 game developers who accuse digital PC game distributor Valve Corp. of stifling competition in the Personal Computer (“PC”) game distribution market through its Steam platform. Wolfire Games LLC, et al. v. Valve Corp., et al., Docket No. 2:23-mc-00037 (W.D. Wash. Apr 26, 2023).
-
Utah District Court Grants Mattress Businesses’ Motion To Dismiss In Antitrust Case Alleging Conspiracy In And Monopolization Of The Mattresses Market
10/29/2024On October 16, 2024, Judge David Barlow of the United States District Court for the District of Utah granted defendants’ motion to dismiss plaintiff’s claims that nine defendants (specifically, sellers, distributors, and manufacturers in the domestic mattress market, as well as a trade association for sleep-related products) conspired to undermine plaintiff’s attempt to compete to sell mattresses in violation of federal and state antitrust laws. CVB, Inc. v. Corsicana Mattress Co., et al., No. 1:20-cv-00144-DBB (D. Utah Oct. 16, 2024).
-
SDNY Judge Refuses To Transfer DOJ Case Against Concert Promoter, Finding Attempt To Unwind A Merger Cleared By Consent Decree Does Not Necessarily “Modify” The Decree
10/16/2024On October 3, 2024, United States District Judge Arun Subramanian refused to transfer the DOJ’s monopolization case against two companies in the live entertainment industry (“Defendants”) from the Southern District of New York to the District of Columbia. United States, et al. v. Live Nation Entertainment, Inc., and Ticketmaster L.L.C., No. 24-CV-3937 (AS) (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 3, 2024). According to the decision, the case, which alleges violations of the state and federal antitrust laws, is insufficiently related to the consent decree governing Defendants’ 2010 merger to fall within its retention-of-jurisdiction provision. In his ruling, Judge Subramanian drew a distinction between the consent decree, which “resolved a single claim arising under Section 7 of the Clayton Act,” and DOJ’s present allegations that defendants “have violated separate legal duties” under the Sherman Act and analogous state laws.
-
Fifth Circuit Dismisses U.S. Anesthesia Partners’ Appeal, Declining To Hear Constitutional Claims Under Collateral Order Doctrine
09/18/2024On August 15, 2024, Judge Stephen A. Higginson of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, writing for a panel, dismissed an appeal from U.S. Anesthesia Partners (“USAP”) in its ongoing litigation against the Federal Trade Commission (“FTC”).
-
Fourth Circuit Affirms That Continuing Violation Doctrine Does Not Preserve Time-Barred Antitrust Claims Without “New” Harm Or Injury Within The Limitations Period
09/18/2024On August 29, 2024, the Fourth Circuit affirmed a district court’s decision granting summary judgment and dismissing antitrust claims by CSX Transportation, Inc. (“CSX” or “Plaintiff”) against Norfolk Southern Railway Company (“Norfolk Southern”) and Norfolk & Portsmouth Belt Line Railroad Company (“Belt Line”) (collectively, “Defendants”) for alleged exclusionary fees, finding that CSX’s claims were untimely and could not be saved by the “continuing violation” doctrine. CSX Transp., Inc. v. Norfolk S. Ry. Co., et al., No. 23-1537 (4th Cir. 2024).
-
Complaint Against Health Company Sufficiently Pleads Non-Interchangeability Of Emergency Room And Urgent Care Service
09/18/2024On September 5, 2024, the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida denied Health First, Inc.’s motion to dismiss plaintiffs’ amended complaint in a class action lawsuit alleging monopolization and anticompetitive practices in the healthcare market in Brevard County, Florida. Powers, et al. v. Health First, Inc., No. 6:23-cv-375-JSS-RMN (M. D. Fla. Sept. 5, 2024).
-
Fifth Circuit Dismisses U.S. Anesthesia Partners Appeal, Declining To Hear Constitutional Claims Under Collateral Order Doctrine
08/27/2024On August 15, 2024, Judge Stephen A. Higginson of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, writing for a panel, dismissed an appeal from U.S. Anesthesia Partners (“USAP”) in its ongoing litigation against the Federal Trade Commission (“FTC”).
-
Health Care Company Secures Antitrust Victory With Jury Verdict In Its Favor
08/13/2024On August 1, 2024, a unanimous jury in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California found plaintiff, a veterinary drug manufacturer, failed to allege a relevant antitrust market under Sherman Act, Section 2 and Clayton Act, Section 3 to support its claims against a rival company for allegedly restraining trade in the flea and tick treatment industry. Because plaintiff failed on this threshold question, the jury did not need to consider any other elements of plaintiff’s claims, and the court entered a verdict in favor of defendant. Tevra Brands LLC v. Bayer HealthCare LLC, No. 5:19-cv-04312 (N.D. Cal. July 26, 2019).
-
Eastern District Of New York Finds Circumstantial Evidence Enough To Defeat Summary Judgment Motion In Antitrust Case Against United States Soccer Federation And Major League Soccer
07/17/2024On June 11, 2024, the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York granted in part and denied in part Defendants’ (United States Soccer Federation, Inc. (“U.S. Soccer”) and Major League Soccer, LLC (“MLS”)) motions for summary judgment on Plaintiff’s (North American Soccer League, LLC (“NASL”)) claim that Defendants conspired to exclude it from competing in the men’s professional soccer leagues in the U.S. and Canada in violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act. The Court reasoned that a reasonable jury could find that Defendants acted in concert or unilaterally in applying the professional soccer league standards in a discriminatory manner and allowed that issue and Plaintiff’s monopolization claims to go forward to trial.
-
DOJ Fails To Secure Jury Trial In Adtech Monopoly Suit After Damages Claim Mooted By $2.3 Million Cashier’s Check
06/25/2024
On June 11, 2024, the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia granted defendant’s motion to dismiss plaintiffs’ damages claim in a lawsuit brought by the Department of Justice and eight states against a technology company alleging illegal monopolization of adtech markets. The Court, in an opinion unsealed on June 17, dismissed the damages claim as moot, finding no claim for relief remained after defendant sent the full amount of potential damages to DOJ’s offices in the form of a cashier’s check. The Court also struck plaintiffs’ demand for a jury trial, which was based solely on the claim for damages. United States of America et al. v. Google, LLC, No. 1:23-cv-108 (E.D. Va. Jun. 19, 2024).
-
Second Circuit Affirms Dismissal Of “Pay For Delay” Case Alleging Patent Litigation Settlement Between Pharmaceutical Company And Generic Manufacturers Violated Antitrust Law
05/29/2024On May 13, 2024, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit upheld the dismissal (with prejudice) of a lawsuit that alleged certain “reverse payments” made by a patent-holding pharmaceutical company to competitor generic manufacturers to settle patent infringement litigation constituted an antitrust violation under Sections 1 and 2 of the Sherman Act (among others).
-
Northern District Of California Grants Summary Judgment Finding That Evidence Of Valid Business Justification For Refusal-To-Deal Was Sufficient Despite Evidence Of Anticompetitive Intent
03/26/2024
On February 21, 2024, Judge Vince Chhabria of the United States District Court for the Northern District of California granted motions for summary judgment finding that presented evidence did not give rise to a viable refusal-to-deal claim because, even though there was evidence of a motivation to harm a competitor with the refusal, there was also evidence of a valid business justification. This ruling applies to two cases Simon and Simon, PC v. Align Tech., Inc., No. 3:20-cv-03754, 2022 WL 15523532 (N.D. Cal. Jun. 5, 2020), and Misty Snow v. Align Tech., Inc., 586 F. Supp. 3d (N.D. Cal. 2021), where plaintiffs, dental and orthodontic practices and orthodontic customers, asserted that defendant, a global medical device company who makes dental aligners under the Invisalign brand, violated Section 2 of the Sherman Act’s ban on attempts to monopolize a market.
-
Northern District Court Rejects Medical Technology Company’s Bid To Limit Scope Of Discovery And Recoverable Damages Of Antitrust Claims Using Motion For Judgment On The Pleadings
01/31/2024On January 17, 2024, Judge Jeremy C. Daniel of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois (Eastern Division) denied defendants’ motion for judgment on the pleadings brought under Rule 12(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure that attempted to limit the scope of discovery and recoverable damages of antitrust claims brought by plaintiff. Linet Americas Inc. v. Hill-Rom Holdings Inc. et al., No. 21 CV 6890, (N.D. Ill. Jan. 17, 2024).
-
Sherman Act Claims Of Two Classes Of DirecTV NFL Sunday Ticket Subscribers Will Head To Trial
01/23/2024
On January 11, 2024, Judge Philip S. Gutierrez of the United States District Court for the Central District of California denied defendants’ motion for summary judgment in a case alleging that the National Football League (“NFL”) and its member clubs conspired and entered into unlawful agreements with each other and their broadcast partners to suppress the output of certain kinds of telecasts of professional football games in violation of Sections 1 and 2 of the Sherman Act. In re Nat’l Football League’s Sunday Ticket Antitrust Litig., No. ML 15-02668 PSG (SK), 2024 WL 168298 (C.D. Cal. Jan. 11, 2024). -
Fifth Circuit Grants Mandamus Relief To Car Company, Clarifying That Forum Non Conveniens Doctrine Does Apply In Antitrust Cases
12/13/2023
On November 21, 2023, the United States Circuit Court for the Fifth Circuit vacated a district court ruling denying a motion to dismiss on the basis of forum non conveniens in a suit brought by an auto parts supplier against a global car company. The Fifth Circuit panel, responding to a writ of mandamus, found that the lower court had erroneously relied on outdated precedent in its determination that antitrust cases are barred from dismissal on the basis of forum non conveniens. Prevent U.S.A. Corporation v. Volkswagen AG, et al., No. 23040487 (5th. Cir. Nov. 21, 2023). -
Ninth Circuit Affirms Dismissal Of Sherman §1 And §2 Claims Against Technology Company, Determining Plaintiffs’ “Scattershot” Market Definition Was Inadequate
11/14/2023
On November 3, 2023, a panel of the United States Court of Appeal for the Ninth Circuit affirmed the dismissal with prejudice of claims brought by app developers (“Plaintiffs”) against a technology company (the “Company”) for alleged violations of Sections 1 and 2 of the Sherman Act.1 Coronavirus Reporter et. al., v. Apple, Inc. No. 22-15166 (9th Cir. 2023). -
D.C. Circuit Rejects FTC’s Appeal Related To Alleged Anticompetitive Conduct Stemming From Endo And Impax’s Patent Settlement Agreement, Holding It Was No Different From A Permissible Exclusive Licensing Agreement
09/06/2023
On August 25, 2023, a panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the D.C Circuit affirmed the district court’s dismissal of the FTC’s complaint against Endo Pharmaceuticals Inc. (“Endo”), Impax Laboratories LLC (“Impax”) and their parent companies (collectively “Appellees”) for alleged violations of sections 1 and 2 of the Sherman Act. FTC v. Endo Pharmaceuticals Inc., et al., Dkt. No. 22-05137 (D.C. Cir. Aug. 25, 2023). The suit stemmed from a patent litigation settlement agreement in 2017, which the FTC alleged was an impermissible exclusive licensing arrangement. The D.C. Circuit held that the FTC failed to state a claim because the complaint lacked allegations establishing that the 2017 Agreement extended beyond the rights granted to Impax under settled law and precedent. -
Direct Purchasers Defeat Merck’s Motion For Summary Judgment In Monopolization Case Involving Mumps Vaccine Products
08/16/2023
On July 27, 2023, Judge Chad Kenney of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania granted in part and denied in part Merck’s motion for summary judgment in relation to a class action alleging that direct purchasers of Merck’s mumps vaccines were overcharged as a result of Merck’s alleged unlawful monopolization of the mumps vaccine market in violation of Section 2 of the Sherman Act and New Jersey and New York state laws. In re Merck Mumps Vaccine Litig., No. 12-3555 (E.D. Pa. July 27, 2023). Plaintiffs allege that Merck’s submissions to the FDA and its labels for its mumps vaccines contained false and misleading information in relation to the amount of live virus in its products. According to plaintiffs, this led to competitors being forced to comply with unusual standards to receive FDA approval to market their products, and specifically, it precluded GSK from obtaining a license to sell its vaccine for mumps, measles and rubella (MMR vaccine) and caused plaintiffs to be overcharged. -
Broadway Producer’s Antitrust Claims Against Actors’ Union Barred By Federal Exemption
05/09/2023
On April 14, 2023, the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York dismissed a suit brought by Garth Drabinsky, an award-winning Broadway producer, against an actors’ union, the Actors’ Equity Association (“AEA”), for allegedly blacklisting him in violation of Sections 1 and 2 of the Sherman Act. The Court dismissed the suit with prejudice, holding that Drabinsky’s federal antitrust claims were barred by the statutory exemption for unions. Drabinsky v. Actors’ Equity Association, No. 22-CV-8933-LGS (S.D.N.Y.). -
Amazon Wins Motion To Dismiss Antitrust Suit Because Plaintiffs Lacked Antitrust Injury
05/09/2023
On April 20, 2023, Judge Ricardo Martinez of the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington dismissed with leave to amend a putative class action alleging that Amazon’s linking of favorable website product placement for third-party sellers with the third-party sellers’ purchases of Amazon’s fulfillment services was an unlawful tying arrangement under Sections 1 and 2 of the Sherman Act. Hogan v. Amazon.com, Inc., No. 21-996 (W.D. Wash. Apr. 20, 2023). Plaintiffs were members of Amazon Prime, an Amazon program offering free or reduced shipping on purchases through Amazon, among other benefits, in exchange for an annual fee. Plaintiffs alleged that third-party sellers who purchase Amazon’s fulfillment services receive a “Prime Badge” and favorable product placement on Amazon’s website in the “Buy Box,” the section of the product page through which plaintiffs claimed 90% of Amazon.com consumer purchases are made.Categories: Antitrust Injury, Antitrust Standing, Monopolization, Sherman Act § 1, Sherman Act § 2, Tying -
Western District Of Washington Trims Some Claims, Keeps Others, In Most-Favored-Nation Litigation Against Amazon
04/18/2023
On March 23, 2023, the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington partially granted and partially denied Amazon’s motion to dismiss a putative consumer class action alleging Amazon’s policies have prevented third-party sellers from offering lower prices on other e-commerce platforms. Frame-Wilson, et al. v. Amazon.com, Inc., No. 2:20-cv-00424-RAJ, 2023 WL 2632513 (W.D. Wash. Mar. 23, 2023). -
Central District Of California Nixes Streaming Platform’s Cartel Claims Against Popular Comedians
04/18/2023
On April 5, 2023, Judge Mark C. Scarsi of the Central District of California dismissed with prejudice a streaming service’s antitrust counterclaims alleging that various well-known comedians and their licensing agents conspired to fix prices and attempted to monopolize the market for spoken-word comedic audio content for failure to allege facts showing either an agreement in restraint of trade in violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act or the market power necessary to state a claim under Section 2. Yellow Rose Productions Inc. v. Pandora Media LLC, No. 2:22-cv-00809 (C.D. Cal, Apr. 5, 2023). -
Northern District Of California Dismisses Class Action Suit Against Social Networking Company Without Prejudice, Rejecting An Argument That Failing To Share Data Constitutes Anticompetitive Conduct
03/28/2023
On March 8, 2023, Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr. of the United States District Court for the Northern District of California granted a motion to dismiss a proposed antitrust class action lawsuit alleging that social networking company (the “Company”) has a monopoly in the professional social networking market, which it protects through a barrier to entry comprising the Company’s “data centralization and aggregation, its machine learning and AI infrastructure, and the inferred data it produce[s].” Crowder et al. v. LinkedIn Corporation, No. 22-cv-00237-HSG (N.D. Cal., Mar. 8, 2023). Plaintiffs alleged the Company violated Sections 1 and 2 of the Sherman Act by engaging in a “monopoly broth” of anticompetitive conduct, ranging from exclusive data sharing agreements to an alleged agreement with Facebook to divide markets. Granting the motion to dismiss, the Court ruled that none of the alleged activities amounted to anticompetitive conduct, either individually or on aggregate. -
Department Of Justice And State Attorneys General Sue Google For Alleged Monopolization Of Digital Advertising Technologies
02/28/2023
On January 24, 2023, the Department of Justice, along with the Attorneys General of California, Colorado, Connecticut, New Jersey, New York, Rhode Island, Tennessee, and Virginia, filed a civil antitrust action against Google in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia. Plaintiffs allege that Google violated Sections 1 and 2 of the Sherman Act by monopolizing several digital-advertising products. These products are various software programs and exchanges used by advertisers to create ads and place them on websites, including as search results on Google. When someone uses Google’s search engine, they are not only inundated with popular search-engine results but with relevant advertisements. In addition to search-engine advertisements, Google’s tools are used by third-party websites to promote digital advertising. Plaintiffs contend that website publishers rely on Google’s digital-advertising products to sell advertisements and that advertisers depend on them to purchase advertisements. -
Fifth Circuit Rejects Hospital Operator’s Antitrust Claims Against Dominant Medical Provider In Shreveport, Louisiana
10/11/2022
On September 19, 2022, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit held that the operator of a hospital in Shreveport, Louisiana had failed to adequately plead Sherman Act § 1 and § 2 claims against the dominant medical provider in the Shreveport market. BRFHH Shreveport, LLC v. Willis-Knighton Medical Center, No. 21-30622 (5th Cir. Sep. 19, 2022). -
Generic Drug Manufacturer Barred From Bringing “Sham” Litigation Claim By Previous Settlement
08/03/2022
On July 21, 2022, the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit unanimously affirmed a district court judge’s conclusion that a prior settlement released a claim by plaintiff, a generic pharmaceutical manufacturer (the “Company”), that defendants engaged in “sham” patent litigation to block it from launching a generic version of defendants’ brand-name drug. Perrigo Co, et al. v. AbbVie Inc, et al., No. 21-3026 (3d Cir. Jul. 21, 2022).