Last Week in Antitrust Litigation (#001)

Week of March 17, 2025

Top Takeaways

1. Sports Industry Under Fire: Trading card titan Fanatics and the APT Tour face new lawsuits, while the NCAA is again hit with a challenge to its eligibility rules.

2. Courts are not Shy to Dismiss Claims: Rulings reveal judges are ensuring plaintiffs adequately plead and prove all elements, like market definition, of their claims.

3. Class Actions Continue to Result in Substantial Settlements:  Pharmaceutical settlement topped $233 million after opt-outs, demonstrating the ongoing financial risk these cases present.

New Cases Filed

Scaturo v. Fanatics, Inc. (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 17, 2025): Plaintiff filed a putative class action against Fanatics, Inc. (“Fanatics”), its affiliates, major U.S. sports leagues, players associations, and OneTeam Partners LLC, alleging a broad conspiracy to monopolize the market for newly issued, fully licensed NBA, NFL, and MLB trading cards in violation of Sections 1 and 2 of the Sherman Act. According to the complaint, Fanatics engaged in a multifaceted anticompetitive scheme, including (a) securing unprecedented long-term exclusive licensing deals with all major leagues and players associations in exchange for equity stakes, (b) acquiring Topps and a controlling interest in GC Packaging, Panini’s primary manufacturer, and using that control to restrict supply, (c) poaching Panini employees using threats and inducements, and (d) interfering with Panini’s player autograph deals and spreading false claims to undermine its business. Plaintiff alleges these actions led to higher prices, reduced competition, and long-term foreclosure of the market, and seeks class certification, treble damages, permanent injunctive relief, and attorneys’ fees and costs.

Pospisil v. ATP Tour (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 18, 2025): Plaintiffs, a group of twelve professional tennis players and the Professional Tennis Players Association, filed a putative class action against the ATP Tour, WTA Tour, International Tennis Federation, and International Tennis Integrity Agency, alleging violations of Sections 1 and 2 of the Sherman Act through a wide-ranging conspiracy to suppress player compensation and exclude rival tennis events. Plaintiffs allege that defendants engaged in (a) horizontal price-fixing of prize money and off-court income, (b) mandatory assignment of NIL rights for zero compensation, (c) coercive ranking and scheduling systems to lock players into defendants’ tournaments, (d) non-compete and closed sanctioning agreements restricting new tournaments, and (e) abuse of anti-doping and integrity enforcement to maintain control. According to plaintiffs, these interlocking restraints reduced compensation, prevented players from pursuing alternative opportunities, and excluded new entrants from the market for professional tennis services, resulting in monopsony power and harm to players, fans, and the sport. Plaintiffs seek class certification, treble and compensatory damages, injunctive relief dismantling the cartel, and attorneys’ fees and costs.

Follow-on cases that were filed include:

• TranS1, LLC v. Blue Cross Blue Shield Ass’n (E.D. Pa. Mar. 17, 2025) (alleging market allocation and price-fixing in health insurance industry like in CommonSpirit v. Blue Cross (N.D. Ill. Mar. 4, 2025))

• Melrose Pharmacy v. GoodRx, Inc. (D. Ariz. Mar. 19, 2025) (alleging GoodRx and PBMs engaged in price-fixing agreement to share sensitive pricing information like in Keaveny Drug v. GoodRx (C.D. Cal. Oct. 30, 2024))

• Elad v. NCAA (D.N.J. Mar. 20, 2025) (alleging NCAA’s eligibility rules are anticompetitive)

• Paper Plate LIC, LLC v. Kraft Heinz Co. (N.D. Ill. Mar. 21, 2025) (alleging price-fixing of frozen potato products like in Redner’s Markets v. Lamb Weston (N.D. Ill. Nov. 15, 2024))

Dispositive Orders and Verdicts

Am. President Lines v. Matson, Inc. (D.D.C. Mar. 11, 2025): In this case alleging monopolization and attempted monopolization of the U.S.-Guam shipping market in violation of the Sherman Act, the court granted summary judgment in favor of defendant Matson Navigation Company (“Matson”). The court found that plaintiff produced enough indirect evidence of Matson’s market power in the market for container cargo shipping services to survive summary judgment (high market share with barriers to entry). However, the court held that the evidence of Matson’s conduct—e.g., threatening and retaliating against customers who work with APL—did not sufficiently establish that it was exclusionary, warranting summary judgment in Matson’s favor.

United States v. Live Nation Ent., Inc. (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 14, 2025): In this case alleging that Sherman Act claims against Live Nation and Ticketmaster based on their alleged conditioning the rental of its large amphitheaters on the purchase of its concert-promotion services, the court denied defendants motion to dismiss. Defendants moved to dismiss two parts of the complaint: (1) the tying claim, and (2) the States’ Sherman Act damages claims. The court found that (a) the complaint stated a plausible tying claim, rejecting Live Nation's refusal-to-deal argument, (b) the States have antitrust standing to sue for damages under the Sherman Act, as they claimed consumers paid supracompetitive prices to Ticketmaster.

GIAGEN GmbH v. Zymo Rsch. Corp. (C.D. Cal. Mar. 14, 2025): In this case involving a sham litigation counterclaim based on alleged patent misuse in violation of the Sherman Act, the court denied counterclaim-defendant’s motion to dismiss. The court held that (a) whether the Sherman Act claim was barred by the Noerr-Pennington doctrine is a fact-intensive inquiry that cannot be resolved at the motion to dismiss stage, and (b) counterclaim-plaintiff plausibly alleged patent misuse.

Ecoshield Pest v. Grit Mktg. (D. Ore. Mar. 18, 2025): In this case alleging, among other things, monopolization of the pest-control services market in Section 2 of the Sherman Act, the court granted defendants’ motion to dismiss the Sherman Act claims. The court held that plaintiff failed to plausibly allege (a) a relevant product market, (b) monopoly power, (c) sufficient allegations of below-cost pricing, and (d) a cognizable antitrust injury.

Davis v. Hanna Holdings, Inc. (E.D. Pa. Mar. 18, 2025): In this putative class action filed by indirect purchasers alleging an illegal conspiracy in violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act and state antitrust laws, plaintiffs (indirect purchasers), the court granted in part defendant’s motion to dismiss. The court held that (a) plaintiffs lack Article III standing to pursue injunctive relief under Section 1 there was no threat that the plaintiffs would sustain future injury, (b) plaintiffs have Article III standing to pursue class claims based on the laws of states in which they do not reside, and (c) plaintiffs have antitrust standing to pursue state antitrust law claims.

Orji v. Citadel Sec. (D. Md. Mar. 19, 2025): In this case alleging defendants engaged in a conspiracy to manipulate securities prices in violation of, among others, Section 1 of the Sherman Act, the court granted the market making defendants’ motion to dismiss. The court found the complaint failed to adequately allege a violation of Section 1, and as a result, did not reach defendants’ preclusion argument (i.e., the Sherman Act claim was precluded by the Securities Exchange Act).

Class Action Certifications and Settlements

Ok. Firefighters Pension v. Deutsche Bank (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 17, 2025): In this antitrust class action concerning “gilt bond transactions,” the court granted preliminary approval of a settlement between the plaintiff and several major financial institutions, including Deutsche Bank and Citigroup. The class includes direct purchasers of gilt bonds in the U.S. from January 1, 2009, to December 31, 2013. The court approved the notice plan and scheduled a fairness hearing for January 22, 2026, to consider final approval of the settlement and related matters, including a proposed plan of distribution and any requests for exclusion or objections.

In re Generic Pharms. Pricing Antitrust Litig. (E.D. Pa. Mar. 17, 2025): The court granted final approval of a $265 million settlement (adjusted to $233.2 million due to opt-outs) between direct purchaser plaintiffs and Sandoz Inc. and Fougera Pharmaceuticals, Inc., with a possible increase to $295.5 million under a most favored nation clause. The settlement resolves claims that the defendants conspired to fix prices of generic drugs, allegedly harming over 700 direct purchasers across the U.S. The court certified the class for settlement purposes, approved $2 million in expenses and 29% in attorneys’ fees, and found the settlement fair, adequate, and reached at arm’s length.

***      ***      ***

If you have any antirust questions or would like more information about any of these matters, please contact one of the following authors:

Christian Lorenz Zach Martin  christian@kressinpowers.com zach@kressinpowers.com

This newsletter has been prepared by Kressin Powers LLC for educational and informational purposes only regarding recent legal developments and does not constitute advertising or solicitation. No legal or business decision should be based on its content. Neither this publication nor the lawyers who authored it are rendering legal or other professional advice or opinions on specific facts or matters, nor does the distribution of this publication to any person constitute the establishment of an attorney-client relationship. Those seeking legal advice should contact a member of the Firm or legal counsel licensed in their jurisdiction. The invitation to contact is not a solicitation for legal work under the laws of any jurisdiction in which Kressin Powers LLC lawyers are not authorized to practice. Confidential information should not be sent to Kressin Powers LLC without first communicating directly with a member of the Firm about establishing an attorney-client relationship.