Last Week in Antitrust Litigation (#007)

Week of April 28, 2025

Top Takeaways

1. Healthcare pricing practices under fire: State AGs are targeting PBMs and digital health platforms, as seen in Michigan's action against Express Scripts and GoodRx for alleged price-fixing—signaling intensified scrutiny of healthcare intermediaries' data sharing and pricing practices.

2. Tech and platform challenges intensify: Apple faces severe contempt sanctions for deliberately undermining court-ordered app store competition through deceptive pricing schemes and misleading testimony—a stark warning to companies implementing antitrust remedies.

3. Sham IP claims draw antitrust liability: Courts are increasingly receptive to antitrust claims based on baseless intellectual property assertions, as seen in the Centralcol ruling, exposing companies using IP as a competitive weapon.

New Cases Filed

Compass, Inc. v. Nw. Multiple Listing Serv. (W.D. Wash. Apr. 25, 2025): Plaintiffs sued Northwest Multiple Listing Service ("NWMLS") alleging violations of the Sherman Act and Washington’s Consumer Protection Act based on NWMLS’s adoption and enforcement of rules that blocked plaintiffs’ private exclusive listings and ultimately terminated their access to critical MLS data feeds. Plaintiffs contend that NWMLS, dominated by competing traditional real estate brokers, engaged in a group boycott and amended its rules to foreclose innovative pre-marketing strategies, thereby preserving its monopoly and suppressing competition. Plaintiffs allege that NWMLS’s conduct harmed competition by depriving consumers of alternative home-selling options, reducing innovation, entrenching outdated brokerage practices to the detriment of homeowners and brokers, and forcing plaintiffs to abandon their alternative listing strategies, thereby damaging plaintiffs’ business and reputation. Plaintiffs seek preliminary and permanent injunctive relief prohibiting NWMLS’s restrictive practices, treble damages, and attorneys’ fees and costs.

Valles Cap. Inc. v. Depository Tr. & Clearing Corp. (D. Ariz. Apr. 30, 2025): Valles Capital filed suit against the Depository Trust & Clearing Corporation, major banks, payment processors, and trading firms, alleging a coordinated group boycott and refusal to deal in violation of the Sherman and Clayton Acts. The complaint contends that defendants obstructed Valles Capital’s entry into the direct payroll deposit market—despite its regulatory compliance—by denying access to essential clearing, custody, and banking integration services, while simultaneously promoting unregulated cryptocurrency ventures. Valles alleges this exclusionary conduct, including coordinated or consciously parallel actions, suppressed competition and blocked its proposed Treasury-backed investment platform aimed at channeling a significant share of the $27 trillion U.S. payroll market into tax-compliant, GDP-contributive investment flows. The complaint seeks declaratory and injunctive relief, treble damages, and attorneys’ fees and costs.

Fry v. Cap. One Fin. Corp.(N.D. Cal. Apr. 30, 2025): Several individuals filed a suit under Section 16 of the Clayton Act to block Capital One’s proposed $35 billion acquisition of Discover, alleging that the merger would violate Section 7 of the Clayton Act by substantially lessening competition in the credit card issuing and processing marketplace. Plaintiffs claim the deal would eliminate Discover as a vertically integrated rival, allowing Capital One to become both a dominant issuer and network operator while maintaining allegedly anticompetitive agreements with Visa and Mastercard. They contend this dual role would reduce price competition, raise interchange fees, diminish rewards, increase incentives for coordination among payment networks, and entrench existing barriers to entry and the Visa/Mastercard duopoly. Plaintiffs seek a permanent injunction to block the merger or, alternatively, divestiture, declaratory relief, and attorneys’ fees and costs.

Centralcol, LLC v. FOH, Inc. (S.D. Fl. May 1, 2025): Centralcol filed suit against FOH alleging FOH improperly asserted intellectual property rights in violation of, among others, Section 2 of the Sherman Act and Florida’s antitrust statute. Centralcol contends that FOH attempted to exclude it from the market by asserting baseless intellectual property claims—despite lacking registered rights—in order to disrupt Centralcol’s supply relationship with Celebrity Cruise Lines. The complaint asserts that FOH’s conduct deterred competition and entry into the market for providing hospitality items to large cruise lines in Florida. Centralcol seeks declaratory relief, injunctive relief to prevent further anticompetitive conduct, treble damages, and attorneys’ fees and costs.

The follow-on cases that were filed are:

• Johnson v. NCAA (D. Mont. Apr. 25, 2025) (alleging NCAA’s eligibility rules are anticompetitive like in Elad v. NCAA (D.N.J. Mar. 20, 2025))

• Plumbers Local 690 Health Plan v. Takeda Pharm. Co. (N.D. Cal. Apr. 25, 2025) (alleging coordinated effort to limit competition in the Dexilant market through “reverse payment” and market allocation like in Walgreen Co. v. Takeda Pharm. Co. (N.D. Cal. Mar. 25, 2025))

• UFCW Local 1500 Welfare Fund v. Takeda Pharm. Co. (N.D. Cal. Apr. 29, 2025) (same)

• State of Michigan v. Express Scripts, Inc. (D. Mich. Apr. 28, 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))

• Ritchie Pharmacy, LLC v. GoodRx, Inc. (D.R.I. Apr. 30, 2025) (same)

• Danny Bachoua Chiropractic, APC v. Zelis Healthcare, LLC (D. Mass. Apr. 29, 2025) (refiling a voluntarily dismissed case (see Dispositive Orders 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))

• Signs v. Rouse Servs. LLC (S.D. Iowa Apr. 29, 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))

• Haxton Masonry, Inc. v. RB Glob., Inc. (C.D. Cal. May 1, 2025) (same)

• IPCS Corp. v. RB Glob, Inc. (N.D. Ill. May 1, 2025) (same)

Dispositive Orders and Verdicts

In re Jan. 2021 Short Squeeze Trading Litig. (S.D. Fl. Apr. 5, 2025): In this MDL arising from Robinhood’s trading restrictions during the January 2021 "meme stock" short squeeze, the court granted Robinhood’s motion to compel arbitration of the remaining individual federal securities claims. Robinhood moved to compel arbitration based on arbitration agreements within customer agreements that each plaintiff entered into as part of the brokerage account application process. The court held that (a) the plaintiffs waived any objection to the validity and breadth of the arbitration clause, (b) the case should not be remanded to the Northern District of California as that objection was already rejected by the court, and (c) state law claims, claimed to be outside the scope of the arbitration clause, were already extinguished per a prior order.

Elad v. NCAA (D.N.J. Apr. 25, 2025): In this case challenging the NCAA’s eligibility rules as violative of Section 1 of the Serman Act, the court granted plaintiff’s motion a preliminary injunction. Plaintiff sought an order: (a) enjoining the NCAA from applying its Five-Year Rule to his time at a junior college, (b) compelling the NCAA to grant a waiver permitting his eligibility for the 2025-26 season, (c) declaring him eligible to play football for Rutgers, and (d) enjoining the NCAA’s enforcement of its Rule of Restitution against him and Rutgers. The court found that (a) the Five-Year Rule had a substantial anticompetitive effect under the Sherman Act in light of new NIL-driven market realities, (b) the waiver was warranted to avoid irreparable harm to plaintiff’s collegiate and NFL prospects, (c) the balance of equities weighed in favor of plaintiff due to the potential for irreparable harm while the NCAA could terminate his eligibility if it succeeds, and (d) granting the injunction would serve the public interest.

OJ Com., LLC v. Nat’l Christmas Prods., LLC (S.D. Fl. Apr. 24, 2025): In this case alleging vertical price-fixing agreements for the sale of artificial Christmas trees among defendants and Amazon in violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act and various states’ antitrust laws, the court granted defendants’ motion to dismiss with prejudice. Defendants moved to dismiss the antitrust claims on the grounds that: (a) the court lacked personal jurisdiction over the individual defendants and two corporate defendants; and (b) the complaint failed to plausibly allege an agreement that created unreasonable restraint. The court held that (a) plaintiff failed to show personal jurisdiction over the individual and affiliated entity defendants, either under Florida’s long-arm statute or due process, as their conduct was performed in corporate capacities and lacked sufficient Florida contacts; and (b) plaintiff did not plausibly allege an unreasonable restraint under the rule of reason because the alleged double-digit price increases were vague and unsupported, and the 50% market share was insufficient to establish market power without more, warranting dismissal of the Section 1 claim. Having dismissed the federal claim, the court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state antitrust claims.

State of Connecticut v. Sandoz, Inc. (D. Conn. Apr. 25, 2025): In this case alleging price-fixing, market allocation, and bid rigging among generic drug manufacturers in violation of various state antitrust laws, the court denied defendants’ motion to dismiss Tennessee’s state-law antitrust claims seeking monetary relief. Defendants sought dismissal on of the basis that the 2024 amendments to Tennessee’s antitrust law authorizing parens patriae monetary claims could not be applied retroactively. The court found that (a) the 2024 amendments were substantive and could not be applied retroactively, but (b) the earlier version of the TTPA did not clearly foreclose parens patriae authority for monetary relief, warranting denial of the motion at the pleading stage.

State of Connecticut v. Aurobindo Pharma USA, Inc. (D. Conn. Apr. 25, 2025):  In this case alleging price-fixing, market allocation, and bid rigging among generic drug manufacturers in violation of federal and state antitrust laws, the court granted in part and denied in part defendants’ motion to dismiss the state-law claims. Defendants moved to dismiss the antitrust claims on the following grounds: (a) the States’ claims for failing to identify which governmental entities were allegedly affected by the conduct, (b) parens patriae damages claims under various state statutes, (c) claims for monetary relief by indirect purchasers, and (d) claims for equitable relief including disgorgement. The court ruled that (a) with the exception of New York and Colorado, whose statutes require identifying an entity, the claims would not be dismissed for failing to identify which entities were harmed, (b) parens patriae damages are barred under several state statutes but permitted under others depending on statutory text, (c) Illinois Brick bars some indirect purchaser damages claims but not equitable relief claims at the pleading stage, and (d) claims for equitable relief such as restitution and disgorgement generally survived.

Danny Bachoua Chiropractic v. Zelis Healthcare, LLC (N.D. Cal. Apr. 25, 2025): Plaintiff voluntarily dismissed its entire case without prejudice while noting its intention to refile the case in the District of Massachusetts. It then refiled a new complaint in the District of Massachusetts. See Follow-On Cases above.

Chalmers v. NCAA (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 28, 2025): In this case alleging that the NCAA and six major athletic conferences colluded to suppress compensation for college athletes’ names, images, and likenesses (“NILs”) in violation of Sections 1 and 2 of the Sherman Act, the court granted the NCAA’s motion to dismiss with prejudice. The NCAA sought dismissal of the antitrust claims on the grounds that: (a) plaintiffs’ claims were barred by the statute of limitations, (b) the claims were barred by res judicata and prior class settlements, and (c) the complaint did not adequately plead antitrust injury. The court held that: (a) the continued use of NILs was a consequence of long-past agreements that was not an overt act to restart the statute of limitations, the alleged damages were not speculative to toll the limitations period until the filing of the complaint, and equitable tolling did not apply; and (b) the injunctive claims were precluded by the final judgment in the O’Bannon case and the monetary claims for 10 of the 16 plaintiffs were barred by the Alston settlement’s broad release.

Target Corp. v. Visa Inc. (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 28, 2025): In this case that was consolidated in the In re Payment Card Interchange Fee and Merchant Discount Antitrust Litigation MDL, the court entered a stipulated order dismissing Target’s case against Mastercard. The parties filed the stipulated order for the court’s approval after the parties agreed to settle the claims.

King of Sweets Online, Inc. v. Kervan USA, LLC (D. Del. Apr. 30, 2025): In this case alleging price discrimination under the Robinson-Patman Act in the sale of candy to online resellers competing on Amazon, the court granted defendant Kervan’s motion for summary judgment. Defendant sought summary judgment on the grounds that plaintiff failed to provide evidence of either: (a) competitors receiving lower prices during the relevant time, or (b) lost sales or profits. The court found that plaintiff failed to: (a) show that it operated at the same distribution level or competed directly with the allegedly favored purchaser, and (b) present evidence of lost sales attributable to the alleged price discrimination, defeating the claim for competitive injury, warranting summary judgment in defendant’s favor.

Epic Games, Inc. v. Apple Inc. (N.D. Cal. Apr. 30, 2025): In an enforcement proceeding stemming from Apple’s violation California’s Unfair Competition Law (UCL) based on its anti-steering rules, the court granted Epic’s motion to enforce an injunction, referred the matter to the U.S. Attorney to investigate whether criminal contempt proceedings are appropriate, and denied Apple’s motions to set aside the judgment and for entry of judgment on its indemnification counterclaim. The court found: (a) Apple willfully violated the injunction by imposing a 27% commission on off-app purchases and designing policies—such as restrictive link placement, mandatory scare screens, static URLs, and tightly constrained call-to-action templates—to frustrate competition and undermine the injunction’s effect; (b) Apple’s internal records and testimony showed it knowingly adopted the most anticompetitive options to preserve revenue and misled the court about its decision-making; (c) Vice President Alex Roman gave false testimony and Apple withheld documents, prompting the court to refer the matter to the U.S. Attorney for potential criminal contempt; and (d) Apple failed to identify the attorneys’ fees that are not at all attributable to defense of the Cartwright Act claim, warranting denial without prejudice of Apple’s motion for entry of a judgment on its indemnification counterclaim.

Guardian All. Techs., Inc. v. Miller Mendel, Inc. (E.D. Cal. Apr. 30, 2025): In this case alleging  sham litigation and Walker Process fraud in the  pre-employment public safety background investigation software industry in violation of, among others, Section 2 of the Sherman Act, the court denied defendants’ motion to dismiss the Sherman Act claims. Defendants sought dismissal of the Sherman Act claims on the grounds that: (a) they were barred by issue preclusion based on a prior attorney’s fee decision in related patent litigation, and (b) the Walker Process fraud claim failed to meet the heightened pleading standard of Rule 9(b). The court found that (a) issue preclusion did not apply because the ruling addressed whether the case was “exceptional” under patent law, not whether defendant acted fraudulently in obtaining the patent or pursued sham litigation , and (b) Guardian sufficiently pled its fraud-based claim by alleging specific facts regarding defendants’ knowledge of undisclosed prior art and their failure to file required disclosures, thus satisfying Rule 9(b)’s particularity requirement.

Class Action Certifications and Settlements

In re Seroquel XR (Extended Release Quetiapine Fumarate) Antitrust Litig. (D. Del. Apr. 25, 2025): In this case alleging violations of Sections 1 and 2 of the Sherman Act based on a 2011 “reverse payment” settlement between AstraZeneca and Handa that allegedly delayed generic entry of Seroquel XR, the court granted co-lead counsel’s motion for attorneys’ fees, expense reimbursement, and service awards. The order follows preliminary approval of settlements with AstraZeneca and Handa Pharmaceuticals. Co-lead counsel were awarded $1,122,188.14 in fees (33.3% of the net settlement fund), $2,108,435.59 in litigation expenses, and $10,000 service awards for each class representative, all to be paid from the settlement fund and contingent on final approval of the settlements.

Shields v. Fed’n Internationale de Natation (N.D. Cal. Apr. 23, 2025): In this class action, the court certified two damages classes under Rule 23(b)(3). The parties submitted a stipulation to certify the following two damages classes (1) all swimmers who signed contracts to participate in the International Swimming League’s (“ISL”) December 2018 event in Turin, Italy, and (2) all swimmers who signed contracts to participate in the ISL’s 2019 season. The court entered such stipulation, which followed a Ninth Circuit reversal of an earlier denial and was based on findings that the classes satisfy Rule 23’s requirements.

In re Pork Antitrust Litig. (D. Minn. Apr. 28, 2025): In this class action by direct purchasers of pork products, the court preliminarily approved settlements between the certified class and defendants Tyson, Clemens, and Triumph. The certified class includes persons and entities that directly purchased specified pork products in the U.S. from June 29, 2014 through June 30, 2018, excluding organic, certified as no antibiotics ever, and fully cooked or marinated items. The court approved a detailed notice plan using direct mail, email, and publication, and set a final fairness hearing for August 13, 2025.

Loop LLC v. CDK Glob., LLC (D. Wis. Apr. 29, 2025): In this class action alleging that defendant conspired with its competitor The Reynolds and Reynolds Company to unreasonably restrain trade in the data-integration services market, the court preliminarily approved the parties’ settlement. The settlement is for a monetary payment of $630 million, which includes a proposed $203,133,133 in attorneys' fees, $20 million in legal expenses, $350,000 for the administrator's expenses, and a $250,000 service award, with approximately $406,266,667 million allocated pro rata to the 243 class members. Although the court found the settlement is likely fair and reasonable, it flagged concerns about the high requested attorneys’ fees, limited justification for expenses, the outsized service award, the settlement's multi-year payment structure ($450 million immediately after approval followed by three annual $60 million payments), and the claims verification process. The court will hold a fairness hearing on August 29, 2025.

Smart v. NCAA (E.D. Cal. Apr. 30, 2025): In this putative class action alleging that the NCAA’s now-repealed bylaw barring compensation for Division I baseball volunteer coaches violated the antitrust laws, the court preliminarily approved a $49.25 million class action settlement. The court preliminarily certified a settlement class that includes individuals who served as “volunteer coaches” in Division I baseball programs between November 29, 2018, and July 1, 2023. The settlement allocates approximately $32.79 million for class member payments and provides for attorneys’ fees up to 33.33% of the fund. The court approved the notice plan and scheduled a final fairness hearing for September 15, 2025.

***      ***      ***

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.