On October 7, 2025, Judge James Patrick Hanlon of the United States District Court for the Southern District of Indiana granted in part and denied in part a brand name manufacturer of topical flea-and-tick products’ (the “Company” or defendant) motion to dismiss relating to defendant’s alleged “no generics” agreements with major pet specialty retailers. Spradlin v. Elanco Animal Health, Inc. No. 1:24-cv-01299 (S.D. Ind. Oct. 07, 2025).  

On September 22, 2025, United States District Judge Elaine E. Bucklo of the Northern District of Illinois denied class certification to a putative class of approximately 240,000 dentists that alleged Delta Dental, a nationwide provider of commercial dental insurance, conspired to suppress provider reimbursement rates in violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act.  In re Delta Dental Antitrust Litig., 1:19-cv-06734, MDL 2931 (N.D. Ill. Sept. 22, 2025).  

On 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).

On September 17, 2025, Judge James Donato of the Northern District of California granted a motion to dismiss a putative antitrust class action, holding that plaintiffs failed to state a plausible Sherman Act claim, dismissing all federal antitrust claims with prejudice, and declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over plaintiffs’ state law claims in the absence of any remaining basis for federal jurisdiction.  Cavalleri v. Hermès International, No. 24-cv-01707-JD (N.D. Cal. Sept. 17, 2025).  

On August 29, 2025, the Honorable Robert S. Lasnik of the Western District of Washington granted defendants’ motion to dismiss a putative class action alleging price fixing in the hotel industry via information exchanged through Smith Travel Research (“STR”). Portillo, et al. v. CoStar Group, Inc., et al., No. 2:24-cv-00229-RSL, (W.D. Wash. Aug. 29, 2025).

On August 8, 2025, Chief Judge Miranda M. Du of the United States District Court for the District of Nevada denied all motions to dismiss and held that defendants Western Range Association (WRA) and eight member ranches must face Sherman Act claims alleging a years-long conspiracy to fix sheepherder wages and allocate labor.  Alvarado v. Western Range Ass’n, No. 3:22-cv-00249-MMD-CLB (D. Nev. Aug. 8, 2025).

On August 1, 2025, the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas denied the motions to dismiss filed by three asset managers.  The complaint, brought by thirteen plaintiff states (Texas, Alabama, Arkansas, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Louisiana, Oklahoma, West Virginia, and Wyoming) and supported by a joint DOJ/FTC statement of interest, alleges that defendants used ownership interests in major coal companies to limit coal production in furtherance of environmental stewardship and concern for the climate. 

On July 18, 2025, Judge Jeffrey S. White of the United States District Court for the Northern District of California granted a motion to dismiss filed by hotel operators and a software provider in a high-profile antitrust case, but permitting plaintiffs leave to amend.  The 12(b)(6) motion challenged the sufficiency of plaintiffs’ allegations that defendants conspired to fix hotel room prices through the use of revenue management software.  Dai, et al. v. SAS Inst. Inc., et al., No. 24-cv-02537-JSW (N.D. Cal. 2025).

On July 18, 2025, U.S. District Judge Sarah Morrison of the Southern District of Ohio granted motions filed by the Ohio State University (“OSU”), Learfield Communications, the National Collegiate Athletic Association (“NCAA”) and the Big Ten Conference to dismiss antitrust claims by a putative class of former Ohio State student athletes.  Terrelle Pryor v. Nat’l Collegiate Athletic Ass’n, et al., No. 24-cv-04019, ECF No. 59 (S.D. Oh. Jul. 18, 2025).

On June 24, 2025, the United States District Court for the District of Columbia granted defendant rail companies’ motion for summary judgment on a Sherman Act Section 1 claim.  In a lengthy and sweeping multi-district litigation beginning in 2007, with 114 transferred cases, plaintiffs alleged a price-fixing conspiracy by rail companies.  In re Rail Freight Surcharge Antitrust Litig. (No. I), MDL Dkt. No. 1869 (D.D.C. June 24, 2025).

On 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). 

On April 14, 2025, a federal jury in Nevada convicted a home healthcare nursing executive on one count of conspiracy to fix wages and five counts of wire fraud after a 15-day trial.  The verdict represents the DOJ’s first criminal antitrust conviction relating to labor markets after a string of losses in cases dating back to 2020. 

On 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. 

On March 21, 2025, Judge Jeffrey S. White of the United States District Court for the Northern District of California granted defendant software company’s motion to dismiss plaintiffs’ claims of price-fixing under the Sherman Act, finding that plaintiffs failed to state a plausible claim on their alleged algorithm-based hub-and-spoke conspiracy.  Hanson Dai, et al. v. SAS Inst. Inc., et al., 4:24-cv-02537-JSW, (N. D. Cal.). 

On March 13, 2025, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed the dismissal of a putative class action asserting claims under Section 1 of the Sherman Act against a department store chain (the “Company”) and certain luxury brands (the “Brands”).  Giordano v. Saks & Co. LLC, No. 23-600-CV, 2025 WL 799270 (2d Cir. Mar. 13, 2025).  Plaintiffs alleged that the Company and the Brands entered into no-hire agreements that restrained competition in an alleged nationwide luxury retail employee market.  

On 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).

On February 12, 2025, the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the decision of the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina not to grant class certification in a 17-year-old lawsuit accusing Inmar Inc. of fixing shipping prices for coupon processing services.  Mr. Dee’s Inc. v. Inmar, Inc., No. 23-2165 (4th Cir. Feb. 12, 2025). 

On 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.

On 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.

On 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).

On 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).

On December 13, 2024, Judge Margaret M. Garnett of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York denied defendants’ motions to dismiss a sports streaming company’s antitrust suit challenging their programming distribution methods as well as their proposed joint sports streaming service. FuboTV Inc. v. Walt Disney Co., No. 1:24-cv-01363 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 16, 2024). 

On December 4, 2024, the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington denied defendants’ joint motion to dismiss plaintiffs’ class action price-fixing claims under Section 1 of the Sherman Act, allowing property renters to proceed with their allegations that software firm Yardi Systems, Inc. and multifamily property managers conspired to inflate rent prices. Duffy v. Yardi Sys., No. 2:23-cv-01391-RSL (W.D. Wash. Dec. 04, 2024).

On 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). 

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).