On 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).

On 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.

On September 30, 2024, Judge Karen M. Williams of the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey dismissed with prejudice a complaint, lodged by a putative class of consumers, that alleged various casino-hotels conspired to inflate and fix the price of their hotel rooms by means of pricing software used by each defendant. The Court held that plaintiffs failed to establish a plausible price-fixing conspiracy in violation of antitrust law because plaintiffs: (i) failed to demonstrate parallel conduct; and (ii) did not allege that the algorithm pricing was based on pooled proprietary data. Cornish-Adebiyi, et al. v. Caesars Entertainment, Inc., et al., No. 1:23-CV-02536-KMW-EAP, 2024 WL 4356188 (D.N.J. Sept. 30, 2024).

On September 17, 2024, a unanimous panel of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals granted an appeal from a group of professional swimmers and the International Swimming League (“ISL”) (together, “Plaintiffs”) in their ongoing litigation against World Aquatics, formerly known as Fédération Internationale de Natation, the governing body for international and Olympic aquatic sports (“FINA” or “Defendant”). Shields, et al. v. World Aquatics, No. 23-15092 (9th Cir. Sept. 17, 2024). Plaintiffs’ primary allegation in the litigation is that Defendant engaged in a group boycott of ISL, an upstart competitor to Defendant.  

On September 13, 2024, in a multidistrict litigation, the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri granted defendants’ motion to dismiss plaintiffs’ class action claim of a conspiracy to artificially inflate prices in the United States for seed and crop protection chemicals (“Crop Inputs”), such as fungicides, herbicides, and insecticides. In re Crop Inputs Antitrust Litigation, 21-md-02993-SEP (E.D. Mo. Sept. 13, 2024). Central to plaintiffs’ claim is an alleged scheme by defendants, including the largest wholesalers and retailers of Crop Inputs in the United States, to impede pricing transparency by boycotting electronic sales platforms for Crop Inputs in violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act. Plaintiffs were direct and indirect purchasers of Crop Inputs, like farmers, who also brought claims for violation of state antitrust and consumer protection statutes.

On 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).

On 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).

On 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.

On June 5, 2024, Judge William Griesbach of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin dismissed an action brought by a class of Harley-Davidson purchasers alleging that the motorcycle manufacturer unlawfully tied its motorcycles and the accompanying factory warranty to Harley-Davidson replacement parts. In Re: Harley-Davidson Aftermarket Parts Marketing, Sales Practices, and Antitrust Litigation, No. 23-MD-3064, 2024 WL 2846349 (E.D. Wis. June 5, 2024). The lawsuit stems from a 2022 Federal Trade Commission (FTC) action alleging Harley-Davidson violated the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act (MMWA) by voiding warranties for repairs made using third-party parts. The MMWA is a consumer protection statute that requires transparency in warranties on consumer products and establishes minimum criteria for different types of warranties and warranty-like products. Unlike the FTC suit, however, here plaintiffs also alleged a Sherman Act Section 1 violation. But finding plaintiffs had failed to properly allege an actionable tying scheme, the Court dismissed the action in its entirety.

On May 23, 2024, the National Collegiate Athletic Association (“NCAA”) reached an agreement with five of the nation’s collegiate athletic conferences—the Atlantic Coast Conference, the Big Ten, the Big 12, the Pac-12, and the Southeastern Conference—to allow student athletes to receive pay directly from their colleges and universities. The agreement is intended to settle In re: College Athlete NIL Litigation, Case No. 4:20-cv-03919, N.D. Cal., an ongoing antitrust class action in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California involving hundreds of thousands of collegiate athletes. 

On 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). 

On May 8, 2024, Judge Miranda M. Du of the United States District Court for the District of Nevada dismissed with prejudice a putative class action complaint alleging the unlawful restraint of trade via a hub-and-spoke conspiracy between and among an algorithmic pricing software company and multiple operators of hotels on the Las Vegas Strip in violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Antitrust Act. Gibson v. Cendyn Group, LLC, et al, No. 2:23-CV-00140-MMD-DJA, 2024 WL 2060260 (D. Nev. May 8, 2024).

On April 19, 2024, Judge Anthony Trenga of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia granted a motion to dismiss an antitrust class action against several shipbuilding companies who supply the U.S miliary. The action was brought on behalf of a putative class of persons employed as naval architects or marine engineers by defendants. Plaintiffs alleged that defendants violated Section 1 of the Sherman Act by allegedly entering into an unwritten agreement not to affirmatively recruit one another’s naval engineers or architects. The Court ultimately concluded that the claims were barred by the Sherman Act’s four-year statute of limitations, and accordingly dismissed the action in its entirety. Scharpf, et al. v. General Dynamics Corp. et al., No. 123CV01372AJTWEF, 2024 WL 1704665 (E.D. Va. Apr. 19, 2024).

On March 28, 2024, Judge Troy L. Nunley of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California denied a motion to dismiss a lawsuit alleging that California landowners conspired to drive up the price of properties in Solano County. Flannery Assoc. LLC v. Barnes Family Ranch Assoc., LLC et al., No. 2:23-CV-00927 (E.D. Cal. Mar. 28, 2024). The Court held that plaintiff had adequately alleged both direct and circumstantial evidence of a horizontal price-fixing agreement.

On March 20, 2024, the Southern District of New York dismissed DirecTV’s (“Plaintiff”) claims against Nexstar Media Group, Mission Broadcasting, and White Knight Broadcasting (together, “Defendants”) for conspiring to fix prices for retransmission agreements (“RCAs”) and unlawfully sharing information in violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act. DirecTV LLC v. Nexstar Media Group Inc. et al., Case No. 23-cv-2221, 2024 WL 1195524 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 20, 2024) (the “Opinion”).

On February 23, 2024, Judge Clifton L. Corker of the Eastern District of Tennessee enjoined the National Collegiate Athletic Association (“NCAA”) from enforcing rules that prohibited third parties from entering into compensation agreements with student-athletes during the recruiting and transfer process as a potential violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act. State of Tennessee and Commonwealth of Virginia v. National Collegiate Athletic Association, Case No. 3:24-cv-00033, 2024 WL 755528 (E.D. Tenn. Feb. 23, 2024).

On January 19, 2024, Judge Patti B. Saris of the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts held that American National Red Cross (“ARC”) is not a “person” under the Sherman Act and therefore not subject to the Act’s prohibitions. Verax Biomedical Inc. v. American National Red Cross, 2024 WL 208127 (D. Mass. Jan. 19, 2024). Plaintiff, a manufacturer of tests for detecting bacterial growth in blood platelets, alleged that ARC, the largest supplier of blood platelets in the United States, leveraged its power in the market for platelets to monopolize the market for bacterial growth mitigation services. Specifically, plaintiff brought three claims under the Sherman Act: tying, exclusive dealing and attempted monopolization. But, because the Court found that the Sherman Act does not reach ARC, it dismissed all three antirust claims. Notably, the Court reached this conclusion even after the Antitrust Division of the United States Department of Justice (“DOJ”) filed a statement of intertest with the Court, arguing that ARC can indeed be sued under the Sherman Act.

On 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).

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).

On November 30, 2023, Chief Judge Richard Seeborg of the United States District Court for the Northern District of California dismissed a lawsuit alleging that Google illegally ties its mapping applications in violation of U.S. antitrust law. At issue were defendant’s application programing interfaces (“API’s”) “Maps,” “Routes,” and “Places.” Plaintiffs claimed that defendant unlawfully ties these three APIs together, by purportedly refusing to sell one service unless the purchaser also agrees to buy the other mapping services or agrees to refrain from purchasing similar services from any alternative source. According to plaintiffs, because of defendant’s alleged market power, this tying scheme allowed defendant to charge higher prices for its mapping services in violation of the Sherman Act, the Clayton Act, and California’s Unfair Competition Law. Dream Big Media Inc., et al. v. Alphabet Inc., et al., 2023 WL 8285808 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 20, 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).

On October 30, 2023, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit affirmed the district court’s summary judgment in favor of defendants Ring Power Corporation, Ziegler, Inc., and Thompson Tractor Company, Inc., because plaintiff International Construction Products, LLC (ICP) failed to present sufficient evidence—direct or circumstantial—to establish a conspiracy to boycott under Section 1 of the Sherman Act.  International Construction Products, LLC v. Ring Power Corporation, No. 22-10231, 2023 WL 7127515 (11th Cir. Oct. 30, 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).

On October 4, 2023, the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois granted with leave to amend the American Board of Psychiatry and Neurology’s (ABPN) motion to dismiss a class action alleging in part that ABPN’s tying of its professional certification to its maintenance of certification (MOC) program violated Section 1 of the Sherman Act prohibiting illegal restraints of trade or commerce.  Lazarou v. Am. Bd. of Psychiatry & Neurology, No. 19-cv-01614 (N.D. Ill. Oct. 4, 2023).

On August 28, 2023, a panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit affirmed the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania’s application of the rule of reason to evaluate a complex price-fixing conspiracy involving both horizontal and vertical relationships between defendants.  Winn-Dixie Stores, Inc., et al. v. Eastern Mushroom Marketing Cooperative, Inc., et al., Case No. 22-2289, 2023 WL 5521221 (3d. Cir. Aug. 28, 2023).

On August 30, 2023, a panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit vacated and remanded back to the district court an award of $57.4 million in attorney fees in one of several private class actions with claims alleging unlawful price-fixing in the broiler chicken industry via exchange of data through a third-party research compiler.  In re: Broiler Chicken Antitrust Litigation, Case No. 22-2889 (7th Cir. Aug. 30, 2023).

On September 12, 2023, the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit affirmed the district court’s dismissal of Sherman Act claims by a supplier of wastewater treatment products against two of its competitors and a private standard-setting organization, NSF International, holding that the Noerr-Pennington doctrine protected defendants from Sherman Act liability.  Geomatrix, LLC v. NSF Int’l, No. 22-1947, 2023 WL 5925977 (6^th Cir. Sept. 12, 2023).

On August 17, 2023, the United States District Court for the District of Minnesota dismissed a complaint brought by “cow-calf” ranchers alleging they had been injured by a conspiracy by  defendant meat packers to artificially depress the price they paid for fed cattle.  In re Cattle and Beef Antitrust Litigation, No. 22-3031 (D. Minn. Aug. 17, 2023).  District Judge John R. Tunheim held that the ranchers, who had not sold directly to defendants, had not adequately alleged “traceability” to show that the allegedly depressed prices they received for cows and calves they sold during the alleged conspiracy period were connected to defendants’ conduct, but left the option open for plaintiffs to refile their complaint.

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.

On July 27, 2023, Judge William Shubb of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California denied the National Collegiate Athletic Association’s (NCAA) motion to dismiss a putative class action alleging in part that the NCAA and its member schools violated Section 1 of the Sherman Act by conspiring not to compensate coaches defined as volunteer coaches under NCAA regulations.  Smart v. NCAA, No. 22-cv-02125 (E.D. Cal. July 27, 2023).

On June 30, 2023, U.S. District Judge Thomas Durkin for the Northern District of Illinois partially granted defendants’ motion for summary judgment in a consolidated antitrust case alleging unlawful price-fixing in the broiler chicken industry.  In re Broiler Chicken Antitrust Litig., 1:16-cv-08637 (N.D. Ill. 2023).  Plaintiffs claim defendant broiler chicken producers raised the price of broiler chickens in violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act by unlawfully agreeing to reduce the supply of chicken between 2008 and 2009 and 2011 and 2012.  The Court granted summary judgment in favor of seven defendants but denied the motions by 11 other defendants and allowed those claims to proceed to trial, citing differences in the amount of evidence expressly involving each defendant.

On May 22, 2023, Judge Caproni of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York dismissed with prejudice a long-running litigation brought by plaintiff traders who in 2014 accused certain financial institutions of conspiring to periodically suppress a daily silver benchmark price set in London in violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act.  In re London Silver Fixing, Ltd., Antitrust Litigation, 2023 WL 3582198 (S.D.N.Y. May 22, 2023).  Plaintiffs had accused the financial institutions of manipulating silver prices from 2007 to 2013.

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.).

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.

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).

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).

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.

On February 27, 2023, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit reversed and remanded the Southern District of New York’s dismissal of antitrust claims alleging that defendants conspired to manipulate the market value of platinum and palladium. In re Platinum and Palladium Antitrust Litigation, No. 20-1458 (2d Cir. Feb. 27, 2023). The Second Circuit ruled that certain plaintiffs who traded futures contracts on an exchange were efficient enforcers with standing to sue under Section 1 of the Sherman Act, while traders in the physical markets for these metals were not efficient enforcers and lacked antitrust standing.

On March 7, 2023, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit vacated and remanded the lower court’s dismissal of Relevant Sports, LLC’s (“Plaintiff”) claim that United States Soccer Federation, Inc. (USSF) and Fédération Internationale de Football Association (FIFA) (“Defendants”) violated Section 1 of the Sherman Act’s prohibition on unreasonable restraints of trade. Relevant Sports, LLC v. United States Soccer Federation, Inc., 2023 WL 2375884 (2d Cir. Mar. 7, 2023). The Second Circuit held that where an association rule itself is the alleged anticompetitive agreement challenged, the existence of a binding association rule is sufficient direct evidence of concerted action to survive a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim under Section 1 of the Sherman Act. Plaintiff “need not allege an antecedent agreement to agree” to move forward on its antitrust claim.

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.

On December 30, 2022, the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit unanimously affirmed the district court’s dismissal of an aspiring National Basketball Association (NBA) player agent’s suit against the National Basketball Players Association (NBPA) and the NBA.  Rosel C. Hurley III v. National Basketball Players Association, et al., No. 22-3038 (6^th Cir. Dec. 30, 2022).  Plaintiff alleged that the NBPA and NBA conspired to exclude him from the marketplace for NBA player agents.  The Sixth Circuit affirmed the district court’s dismissal, because it viewed the NBPA and NBA’s alleged actions as exempt from antitrust scrutiny under both the statutory and non-statutory labor exemptions to the Sherman Act.

On November 21, 2022, Judge Virginia Kendall of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois denied a motion to dismiss an antitrust lawsuit alleging that ten turkey product suppliers coordinated pricing and reduced output though direct communications, trade association meetings, and industry reports provided by co-defendant Agri Stats, Inc. In re Turkey Antitrust Litig., No. 19-8318 (N.D. Ill. Nov. 21, 2022). The Court had previously dismissed as implausible an initial, single-paragraph allegation of a per se violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act. The case proceeded, however, on plaintiffs’ separate allegations of improper exchanges of competitively sensitive information under the rule of reason. Over a year later and after completion of substantial discovery, plaintiffs amended their complaint to renew their per se claim. The motion to dismiss here only related to the per se violation. In denying the motion to dismiss, the Court ruled that plaintiffs’ complaint sufficiently alleged parallel conduct in the form of coordinated capacity reductions and price increases, as well as certain additional “plus factors” that could suggest an agreement among defendants.

On October 11, 2022, Judge Catherine C. Blake of the United States District Court for the District of Maryland denied the U.S. Department of Justice’s (“DOJ”) motion to preliminarily enjoin the $440 million acquisition of a company with expertise in specialized software development, cyber, and analytics by a larger consulting firm. Ruling that DOJ failed to show that the proposed transaction would cause anticompetitive harm in violation of federal antitrust laws, the Court was unwilling to grant the “extraordinary remedy” of blocking the merger and permitted the parties to close the transaction. United States v. Booz Allen Hamilton Inc. et al., No. 1:22-cv-01603 (D. Md. Oct. 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).

On September 9, 2022, the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit affirmed a district court’s dismissal of an antitrust lawsuit filed against defendants National Operating Committee on Standards for Athletic Equipment (“NOCSAE”) and a group of football helmet manufacturers including Riddell, Inc., Kranos Corp., and Xenith, LLC.  Hobart-Mayfield, Inc. v. Nat’l Operating Comm. on Standards for Athletic Equip., No. 21-1441 (6th Cir. Sept. 9, 2022).  The Court ruled that plaintiff Hobart-Mayfield, Inc.’s (Mayfield) complaint alleging antitrust violations in the alleged football helmet market failed to state a claim for plausible relief and was properly dismissed by the trial court upon defendants’ Rule 12(b)(6) motion.

On August 8, 2022, Judge Daniel Crabtree of the United States District Court for the District of Kansas declined to apply the co-conspirator exception to the Illinois Brick direct purchaser rule in a case alleging a conspiracy to delay the entry of generic competition to a patented epinephrine auto injector (“EpiPen”), dismissing antitrust claims against defendant EpiPen manufacturers while allowing the claims against the defendant distributors from whom plaintiffs directly purchased EpiPens to proceed.  KPH Healthcare Services, et al. v. Mylan N.V., et al., No. 20-2065-DDC-TJJ (D. Ka. July 8, 2022).

On August 1, 2022, Judge John S. Tigar of the United States District Court for the Northern District of California certified a class of direct purchasers in a long-running antitrust action alleging that manufacturers of cathode ray tubes conspired to fix prices in violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act.  The Court certified the class after concluding that plaintiffs’ claims were typical of the class and the sole defendant who has not settled with plaintiffs failed to identify any individualized issues that would predominate over issues common to the proposed class.

On June 21, 2022, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit affirmed a decision dismissing Plaintiff Continental Automotive Systems’ claims challenging the alleged refusal of certain standard-essential patent holders and their licensors to issue the supplier patents on fair, reasonable, and nondiscriminatory (“FRAND”) terms under Section 1 and 2 of the Sherman Act.  Continental Automotive Sys., Inc. v. Avanci, L.L.C., No. 20-11032 (June 21, 2022).

On May 23, 2022, Judge David Barlow of the District of Utah dismissed claims against a group of mattress manufacturers who had filed antidumping petitions with federal regulators.  CVB, Inc. v. Corsicana Mattress Company, et al., No. 1:20-cv-00144 (D. Utah 2022).  Plaintiff alleged that defendants engaged in anticompetitive conduct including price fixing and interference with plaintiff’s business relationships in violation of the Sherman Act and the Utah Antitrust Act, in addition to Lanham Act and state common law claims.  The Court dismissed all claims, and in particular dismissed with prejudice those claims relating to defendants’ antidumping petitions, which it found protected under the Noerr-Pennington doctrine.

On May 2, 2022, Judge Andrea R. Wood of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois granted a motion to dismiss a putative class action complaint brought by a plaintiff home buyer against the National Association of Realtors (“NAR”) and a number of residential real estate brokerages alleging that certain NAR rules governing real estate brokers’ dealings with home sellers violated of Section 1 of the Sherman Act.  Leeder v. The Nat’l Ass’n of Realtors, et al., No. 21-cv-00430, Dkt. No. 81 (N.D. Ill. May 2, 2022).  The Court held that, because the home buyer was not a direct purchaser of the brokerage services, which were the subject of a contract between the seller and the seller’s broker, his claim was barred under Illinois Brick Co. v. Illinois, 431 U.S. 720 (1977).