On November 8, 2024, United States District Judge Frank D. Whitney of the Western District of North Carolina denied without prejudice a motion for preliminary injunction sought by two stock car teams against the National Association for Stock Car Auto Racing (“NASCAR”). 2311 Racing LLC, et al. v. National Association for Stock Car Auto Racing, LLC, et al., No. 3:24-CV-00886-FDW-SCR, 2024 WL 4729485 (W.D.N.C. Nov. 8, 2024). The injunction would have prevented NASCAR from enforcing a legal release provision in its 2025 NASCAR Cup Series Charter Member Agreements (“Charter Agreement” or “Agreement”) and allowed plaintiffs to compete as de facto charter teams without abandoning antitrust claims that are pending before the district court. The Court denied the injunction, finding that plaintiffs failed to establish irreparable harm necessary to warrant relief.

On July 23, 2024, Judge Kelley Brisbon Hodge of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania denied plaintiff’s motion for a preliminary injunction seeking to enjoin the Federal Trade Commission (FTC)’s Non-Compete Clause Rule (the “Rule”), which bans the use of most non-compete clauses in employment contracts and is set to go into effect on September 4, 2024. ATS Tree Services, LLC v. Federal Trade Commission, No. 2:24-CV-01743, ECF No. 80 (E.D. Pa. July 23, 2024). A diverging opinion out of the Northern District of Texas granting plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction in that case, and a pending case in the Middle District of Florida, sets up a likely challenge of the Rule up to the Supreme Court. SeeRyan v. Federal Trade Commission, No. 3:24-CV-00986, ECF No. 153 (N.D. Tex. July 3, 2024); Properties of the Villages, Inc. v. Federal Trade Commission, No. 5:24-CV-00316 (M.D. Fla.).

On July 3, 2024, the United States District Court of the Northern District of Texas granted a preliminary injunction barring the Federal Trade Commission from enforcing its rule against non-compete agreements (“Rule”).  Ryan LLC v. FTC, No. 3:24-cv-00986-E, 2024 WL 3297524 (N.D. Tex. July 3, 2024) (“Opinion”).  The Court did not issue a nationwide injunction, extending relief only to plaintiff and plaintiff-intervenors (collectively, “Plaintiffs”).

On June 5, 2024, the U.S. District Court for the Western District of North Carolina denied the Federal Trade Commission’s request for a preliminary injunction barring Novant Health, Inc.’s $320 million acquisition of two North Carolina hospitals, Lake Norman Regional Medical Center and Davis Regional Psychiatric Hospital, both operated by Community Health Systems, Inc. (“CHS”).

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 31, 2023, the United States District Court for the Northern District of California denied the Federal Trade Commission’s (“FTC”) request for a preliminary injunction to block a technology company’s (the “Company”) acquisition of a virtual reality fitness app maker (the “Fitness App”. The Court found that the FTC failed to show that the Company was reasonably likely to enter the virtual reality dedicated fitness app market absent the deal. Federal Trade Commission v. Meta Platforms Inc. et al., No. 5:22-CV-04325-EJD (N. D. Cal. Feb. 3, 2023).

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 April 20, 2021, the United States District Court for the District of Columbia granted defendants’ motion to transfer a motion for preliminary injunction brought by the Federal Trade Commission (“FTC”) alleging that defendants’ plans to enter into a merger agreement violated Section 5 of the FTC Act and Section 7 of the Clayton Act.  Federal Trade Commission v. Illumina, et al., No. 21-873 (D.D.C. 2021).  The Court found that the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California was a more appropriate venue for litigation of the case on the basis that it would be easier for most of the witnesses to get to that district, among other factors.  Preliminary injunction hearings are currently set for August 24, 2021. 

On December 14, 2020, Judge Gerald Pappert of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania denied the Federal Trade Commission’s (“FTC”) emergency motion for an injunction pending appeal.  Federal Trade Commission, et al. v. Thomas Jefferson University, et al., 2:20-cv-01113 (E.D. Pa.  Dec. 14, 2020).  The decision comes after the district court, on December 8, denied the FTC’s request to enjoin Jefferson Health from acquiring Albert Einstein Healthcare Network.  The FTC has appealed the December 8 decision and sought an injunction pending that appeal to prevent the acquisition from going forward on December 15 in accordance with the stipulated terms of a prior temporary restraining order entered in the case.  The Court denied the FTC’s motion, explaining that the emergency motion—rather than maintaining the status quo—would alter the parties’ circumstances by imposing an injunction where there was none.
 

On October 9, 2020, Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers of the United States District Court for the Northern District of California granted in part and denied in part Epic Games’ motion for preliminary injunction against Apple, Inc. Epic Games, Inc. v. Apple Inc. ​, No. 4:20-cv-05640-YGR (N. D. Cal. 2020).  Plaintiff Epic Games (“Epic”) sought to reinstate its popular video game, Fortnite, to the Apple App Store and to regain its access to Apple’s developer tools.  The Court declined to reinstate Fortnite to Apple’s App Store, but ordered Apple to allow Epic’s corporate affiliates access to its developer tools.
 

On September 5, 2018, Judge Trevor N. McFadden of the United States District Court for the District of Columbia granted the Federal Trade Commission’s request for a preliminary injunction preventing Tronox Ltd. (“Tronox”) from completing its proposed $2.4 billion acquisition of National Titanium Dioxide Company Ltd. (“Cristal”) until after a final ruling in the FTC’s administrative proceedings challenging the deal.  Federal Trade Commission v. Tronox Ltd., et al., 1:18-cv-01622 (TNM) (D.D.C. Sept. 12, 2018).Tronox intends to appeal and will consider whether to proceed with a divestiture to resolve potential competitive concerns.