Last Week in Antitrust Litigation (#006)

Week of April 21, 2025

Top Takeaways

1. Software Providers Face New Legal Risks Post-Acquisition: A food labeling SaaS firm is accused of abusing market power after a private equity buyout—an important reminder to assess antitrust exposure when raising prices or limiting data access.

2. Litigation Trend: More Antitrust Lawsuits Across Key Sectors: Recent filings show growing legal pressure in healthcare, energy, and real estate tech—especially where competitors coordinate pricing or limit employee mobility.

3. Big Tech Faces More Legal Setbacks: A court ruled that Google broke antitrust laws in digital advertising, highlighting the need to evaluate bundling strategies and data-sharing policies for legal compliance.

New Cases Filed

RLH Assets, LLC v. ESHA Rsch., LLC (D. Ore. Apr. 22, 2025): Plaintiff filed suit alleging ESHA monopolization of the U.S. market for SaaS-based food-labeling compliance software in violation of Section 2 of the Sherman Act. Plaintiff claims that ESHA, after being acquired by a private equity firm, leveraged its dominant market position to impose 5–10x price increases, deny effective data export, and file baseless litigation. According to the complaint, these actions enabled ESHA to maintain its monopoly, foreclose entry, and charge supracompetitive prices by locking in customers and threatening rivals. Plaintiff seeks declaratory relief, injunctive relief, treble damages, and attorneys’ fees and costs.

The follow-on cases that were filed are:

• Walker v. Am. Soc’y of Health-System Pharmacists, Inc. (D. Md. Apr. 21, 2025) (pharmacy residents alleging conspiracy to suppress their wages and eliminate the ability to negotiate other employment terms like in Albert v. Am. Soc’y of Health-System Pharmacists, Inc.(D. Md. Feb. 28, 2025))

• Mack’s Junk Removal, LLC v. Rouse Servs. LLC (C.D. Cal. Apr. 22, 2025) (alleging conspiracy to artificially increase construction equipment rental prices nationwide like in AXG Roofing, LLC v. RB Glob., Inc. (N.D. Ill. Apr. 1, 2025))

• Northbay Healthcare Corp. v. Blue Cross Blue Shield Ass’n (N.D. Cal. Apr. 23, 2025) (alleging market allocation and price-fixing in health insurance industry like in AmeriTeam Servs. v. Blue Cross & Blue Shield of Ala. (N.D. Ill. Mar. 4, 2025))

• Ayer v. Zelis Healthcare, LLC (D. Mass. Apr. 23, 2025) (D. Mass. Apr. 23, 2025) (refiling a voluntarily dismissed case (see below) alleging conspiracy to suppress payments for out-of-network (OON) healthcare services like in Pac. Inpatient Med. Grp. v. Zelis Healthcare, LLC (D. Mass. Mar. 28, 2025))

• 3Red Partners LLC v. Permian Res. Corp. (N.D. Ill. Apr. 24, 2025) (alleging conspiracy to coordinate and constrain domestic shale oil production, fixing, raising, and maintaining the price of crude oil and derivative products like in In re Shale Oil Antitrust Litig. (D.N.M.))

Dispositive Orders and Verdicts

Bonner v. Med. Bd. of Cal. (E.D. Cal. Apr. 11, 2025): In this case alleging that the Medical Board of California (“Board”) unlawfully suspended plaintiff’s medical license in violation of Sections 1 and 2 of the Sherman Act, the court granted summary judgment in favor of the Board and individual defendants. Defendants sought summary judgment on the grounds that: (a) the Section 1 claim failed to show anticompetitive effects in a defined market under the rule of reason, and (b) his Section 2 claim failed to show monopoly power, market definition, or antitrust injury. The court held that plaintiff failed to (a) define a relevant market or provide evidence of substantial anticompetitive effects, relying only on bare assertions and lacking probative evidence, warranting dismissal of the Section 1 claim, and (b) establish the essential elements of a Section 2 claim, including defining a relevant market, market power, or anticompetitive effects, particularly given unrebutted evidence showing his market share was far below the threshold for monopoly power. The court also noted that it need not reach the defendants’ arguments for immunity because it granted summary judgment on the merits.

Hu Honua Bioenergy, LLC v. Hawaiian Elec. Indus. (D. Haw. Apr. 17, 2025): In this case alleging defendants engaged in efforts to monopolize the Big Island power generation market in violation of the Sherman Act and state antitrust law, the court granted defendants’ motion to dismiss the federal antitrust claims and denied as moot their motion to compel arbitration. Defendants moved to dismiss the antitrust claims for failure to plausibly allege antitrust injury. The court found that (a) plaintiff may have alleged injury to itself, its allegations were speculative as to injury to competition, warranting dismissal of the federal antitrust claims on antitrust injury grounds, and (b) after dismissing the federal claims, it declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state-law claims and dismissed them without prejudice.

FTC v. S. Glazer’s Wine & Spirits, LLC (C.D. Cal. Apr. 17, 2025): In this case alleging that defendant violated the Robinson-Patman and the FTC Act based on discriminatory pricing of wine and spirits between large chains and small independent retailers, the court denied defendant’s motion to dismiss. Defendant moved to dismiss on the grounds that the FTC failed to plausibly allege that: (a) the transactions were “in commerce” under the Robinson-Patman Act, (b) the goods at issue were “of like grade and quality, and (c) there were “favored and disfavored purchasers” or harm to competition. The court found that (a) the FTC sufficiently alleged that Southern’s pricing practices involved goods still in the flow of interstate commerce under a demand-planning theory, (b) the FTC plausibly alleged like grade and quality because the deals at issue were not attributable to a difference in the terms of sale, (c) there was price discrimination evidenced by aggregate data, and (d) the complaint alleged harm to competition sufficient to invoke the Morton Salt inference.

United States v. Google LLC (E.D. Va. Apr. 17, 2025): In this antitrust enforcement action under Sections 1 and 2 of the Sherman Act, the court issued a decision finding for plaintiffs on several claims following a bench trial, while rejecting one claim. The court ruled in plaintiffs favor on the following claims: (a) that Google willfully acquired and maintained monopoly power in the publisher ad server market through conduct such as DFP–AdX integration and First Look (a first right of refusal practice), (b) Google likewise maintained monopoly power in the ad exchange market, benefiting from Last Look and other discriminatory practices, and (c) Google's tying arrangement—conditioning access to AdX’s demand on use of DFP—was unlawful under Section 1 of the Sherman Act. However, the court found plaintiffs failed to establish a relevant market for open-web display advertiser ad networks and ruled in Google’s favor on that claim.

Ayer v. Zelis Healthcare, LLC (D. Kan. Apr. 21, 2025): Plaintiff voluntarily dismissed his entire case without prejudice. He then refiled a new complaint in the District of Massachusetts based on the same allegations with a new plaintiff (Smile Line, LLC). See Follow-On Cases above.

Pickering v. Amazon.com Inc. (W.D. Wash. Apr. 21, 2025): In this pro se case alleging Amazon’s refusal to provide a refund for the purchase of vegan products violated Sections 1 and 2 of the Sherman Act and the Donnelly Act (New York’s antitrust statute), the court granted Amazon’s motion to dismiss with prejudice. Amazon sought dismissal of the antitrust claims on the grounds that the complaint failed to allege any agreement, market definition, or anticompetitive conduct as required by the antitrust laws. The court found that (a) plaintiff’s allegations amounted to a customer service dispute over a refund, not a restraint of trade or monopolization, and (b) the Donnelly Act claim failed for the same reasons as the Sherman Act claims, including lack of antitrust injury.

Class Action Certifications and Settlements

In re College Athlete NIL Litig. (N.D. Cal. April 23, 2025): In this class action regarding college athletes’ rights to compensation for use of their name, image, and likeness, the court tentatively certified Damages Settlement Classes and an Injunctive Relief Settlement Class. The court also tentatively found most of the proposed settlement fair, reasonable, and adequate, but declined to grant final approval due to concerns that immediate implementation of roster limits would unfairly harm some class members by costing them team spots without opt-out rights. The court ordered the parties to work with a mediator to propose settlement modifications that would protect affected athletes, delaying final approval pending revisions.

***      ***      ***

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.