Last Week in Antitrust Litigation (#012)

Week of June 2, 2025

Top Takeaways

1. Expanding labor-market antitrust litigation now targets the high school athletic ecosystem. Calhoun v. CIF advances novel Section 1 and Cartwright Act theories focused on NIL and high school athlete mobility restrictions—foreshadowing broader challenges to entrenched eligibility and amateurism rules.

2. Horizontal MAP enforcement through trade associations faces renewed scrutiny. In Santarlas v. Hoyt Archery, plaintiffs allege systemic price-fixing via collective vendor usage and policy alignment, underscoring litigation risk in dual distribution and trade group contexts.

3. Key rulings confirm increased judicial receptivity to exclusive dealing and sham litigation theories. Courts in Rightline and Bayer declined to dismiss Section 2 claims involving bundled rebates and allegedly pretextual IP assertions—emphasizing the importance of detailed foreclosure and intent analyses in motion-to-dismiss practice.

New Cases Filed

Calhoun v. Cal. Interscholastic Fed'n (N.D. Cal. May 30, 2025): Plaintiff filed a putative class action alleging the California Interscholastic Federation (“CIF”), its ten regional Sections, and several affiliated media companies conspired to suppress compensation for high school athletes’ labor and name, image, and likeness (“NIL”) in violation of, among other things, Section 1 of the Sherman Act and California’s Cartwright Act. The complaint challenges CIF’s rules that prohibit or limit student-athletes from receiving compensation for their athletic labor or NIL in connection with school-affiliated activities, cap performance-related awards, and restrict school transfers for athletic reasons through recruiting and “undue influence” rules, while CIF and its media partners generate substantial revenue through broadcasting, streaming, ticketing, sponsorships, and related services. Plaintiffs allege these coordinated policies constitute illegal cartel agreements that fix the price of student-athletes’ labor and NIL at zero, suppressing competition in two relevant markets: California’s High School Athletic Labor Market and the Student-Athlete NIL Market. Plaintiff seeks class certification, injunctive and declaratory relief, treble damages, and attorneys’ fees and costs.

Santarlas v. Hoyt Archery, Inc. (D. Utah May 30, 2025): Plaintiff filed a class action complaint alleging that Hoyt Archery, Inc., the Archery Trade Association (“ATA”), major archery manufacturers, large retailers, and MAP enforcement vendors conspired to fix and maintain retail prices for archery products in violation of the Sherman Act. The complaint alleges that defendants used the ATA to coordinate the industry-wide adoption, implementation, and collective enforcement of minimum advertised price policies through trade shows, resource libraries, members-only forums, and joint use of software vendors, creating an industry-wide price floor. Plaintiffs claim this horizontal agreement suppressed price competition and resulted in consumers paying artificially high prices in the U.S. Archery Products market. The complaint seeks class certification, treble damages, permanent injunctive and declaratory relief, restitution, and attorneys’ fees and costs.

M7 Indústria e Comércio de Compensados e Laminados Ltda v. U.S. Structural Plywood Integrity Coal. (S.D.N.Y. May 31, 2025): Plaintiffs filed a complaint alleging that the U.S. Structural Plywood Integrity Coalition and its nine member companies conspired to exclude Brazilian producers from the U.S. structural plywood market in violation of, among other things, Section 1 of the Sherman Act. Plaintiffs allege the defendants fabricated biased testing results, spread false product advisories and safety warnings, and orchestrated sham litigation and a coordinated misinformation campaign to pressure certifiers and accreditors to abandon Brazil, thereby suppressing certification and disrupting plaintiffs’ market access. Plaintiffs claim this conduct foreclosed Brazilian competition, reduced supply, and raised prices, particularly harming consumers in New York, the largest import market for Brazilian plywood. The complaint seeks no less than $68 million in compensatory damages (trebled to more than $205 million), injunctive and declaratory relief, and attorneys’ fees.

OWN Your Hunger LLC v. Linus Tech., Inc. (S.D.N.Y. June 2, 2025): Plaintiffs filed a complaint alleging Linus Technology, Epogee LLC, and Peter Rahal engaged in a monopolistic scheme to eliminate competition in the market for EPG, a patented fat substitute, in violation of, among other things, the Sherman Act, Clayton Act, and New York’s Donnelly Act. Plaintiffs claim that after secretly acquiring Epogee—the sole producer of EPG—Defendants cut off supply to all external manufacturers, hoarded two years’ worth of inventory, and prioritized internal use, despite having promoted broad industry reliance on EPG. Plaintiffs allege this exclusionary conduct destroyed competition in the EPG-dependent food sector, resulting in business closures, innovation loss, higher prices, and reduced product choice. Plaintiffs seek emergency injunctive relief restoring prior supply terms, access to hoarded inventory, declaratory relief, and treble damages.

Follow-on cases that were filed include:

• OneroRx, Inc. v. GoodRx, Inc. (C.D. Cal. May 30, 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))

• Tuncay v. Am. Ass'n of Veterinary Clinicians (W.D. Va. May 30, 2025) (alleging conspiracy to suppress wages in the labor markets for veterinary internships and residencies like in Amore v. Am. Ass'n of Veterinary Clinicians (W.D. Va. Apr. 2, 2025)

• McGinnis Constr. Co. v. RB Glob., Inc. (D. Conn. June 2, 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))

• Korean Publishers Ass’n v. Google LLC (N.D. Cal. June 3, 2025) (alleging unlawful monopolization for Andriod app distribution and in-app payment processing like in In re Google Play Dev. Antitrust Litig. (N.D. Cal. Apr. 17, 2020))

• Cavendish v. Zelis Healthcare LLC (D. Mass. June 3, 2025) (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))

• Larry v. NCAA (D. Colo. June 5, 2025) (alleging NCAA’s eligibility rules are anticompetitive like in Elad v. NCAA (D.N.J. Mar. 20, 2025))

• Robinson v. NCAA (D.N.J. June 5, 2025) (same)

Dispositive Orders and Verdicts

Valles Cap. Inc. v. Depository Tr. & Clearing Corp. (D. Ariz. May 29, 2025): In this case alleging that the Depository Trust & Clearing Corporation, major banks, payment processors, and payment processors engaged in a coordinated group boycott and refusal to deal in violation of the Sherman and Clayton Acts, the court dismissed the complaint without prejudice for failure to comply with procedural requirements. The court dismissed the case on the grounds that: (a) plaintiff failed to pay the filing fee after its forma pauperis application was denied, and (b) the corporate plaintiff attempted to proceed without licensed legal representation, which is required under Ninth Circuit precedent.

Bayer Healthcdare LLC v. Second Stone Enters. LLC (D.N.J. May 29, 2025): In this case asserting counterclaims alleging that Bayer attempts to impose rules on and files sham allegations against Amazon resellers to increase the price of loratadine-based allergy products on Amazon in violation of, among other things, Section 2 of the Sherman Act and New Jersey’s antitrust law, the court denied Bayer’s motion to dismiss such counterclaims. Bayer sought dismissal of on the grounds that: (a) the counterclaims were barred by the Noerr-Pennington doctrine; and (b) the Sherman Act counterclaim failed due to lack of allegations of a relevant product market, monopoly power, or antitrust injury. The court held that (a) Noerr-Pennington immunity did not apply because counterclaim plaintiff plausibly alleged sham litigation designed to suppress third-party competition, (b) counterclaim plaintiff adequately pleaded a relevant market for loratadine-based allergy medication and direct and indirect evidence of monopoly power, and (c) counterclaim plaintiff adequately alleged Bayer’s conduct harmed the market by increasing prices and restricting competition.

Rightline, LLC v. FMC Corp. (E.D. Pa. May 30, 2025): In this case alleging unlawful exclusive dealing and monopolization in the market for sulfentrazone-based herbicides in violation of Sections 1 and 2 of the Sherman Act and Section 3 of the Clayton Act, the court denied defendant FMC’s motion to dismiss. FMC moved to dismiss on the grounds that: (a) the complaint failed under the “price-cost” test because its rebate program did not involve below-cost pricing, and (b) even under the “rule of reason,” the complaint failed to allege a plausible relevant market, substantial foreclosure, or anticompetitive effects. The court found that: (a) the price-cost test did not apply because FMC’s loyalty rebate program involved bundled incentives and de facto exclusivity beyond single-product pricing, warranting application of the rule of reason, and (b) Rightline adequately alleged (i) a relevant market focused on sulfentrazone herbicides in the turf industry, (ii) substantial foreclosure by alleging FMC controlled over 95% of the primary distribution channel, and (iii) anticompetitive effects through allegations of supracompetitive pricing and exclusion of generic competitors.

Smarte Carte, Inc. v. Innovative Vending Sols. (D.N.J. June 4, 2025): In this case asserting counterclaims alleging that Smarte Carte engaged in sham litigation to monopolize the market for stroller dispenser systems in violation of federal and New Jersey antitrust laws, the court granted summary judgment in favor of Smarte Carte on the sham litigation counterclaims. The court held that: (a) a reasonable patent owner could have believed that it had some chance of prevailing in its patent infringement claim, and thus, the suit was not objectively baseless, and (b) IVS failed to show that the suit was filed with anticompetitive intent; either of which defeats the sham litigation theory.

Power Buying Dealers USA, Inc. v. Juul Labs, Inc. (N.D. La. June 4, 2025): In this case alleging secondary-line price discrimination in the sale of Juul e-cigarette products in violation of the Robinson-Patman Act, the court granted defendants’ motion to dismiss the third amended complaint with prejudice. Defendants sought dismissal on the grounds that: (a) plaintiff failed to allege a relevant geographic market necessary to establish competitive injury, and (b) the complaint otherwise lacked sufficient factual allegations to support that plaintiff and the alleged favored distributor were in actual competition. The court held that (a) plaintiffs were required to plead a relevant geographic market to state a cognizable Robinson-Patman claim, as competitive injury requires proof that favored and disfavored purchasers competed at the same functional level within the same market, and (b) by omitting such allegations in the amended pleading, despite prior inclusion and related discovery disputes, plaintiffs failed to plausibly allege actual competition, rendering the claim legally insufficient and warranting dismissal without leave to amend.

Class Action Certifications and Settlements

In re Generic Pharms. Pricing Antitrust Litig. (E.D. Pa. May 29, 2025): In this indirect purchaser action involving alleged price-fixing of generic drugs, the court granted final approval of a $5.26 million settlement between indirect purchaser plaintiffs and defendant Apotex Corp. The certified class includes over 59,000 pharmacies, clinics, and hospitals that purchased relevant drugs in the U.S. between 2010 and 2024. The court also approved service awards totaling $15,000, attorneys’ fees and costs of roughly $1.74 million (33% of the fund), and additional notice and administration costs not to exceed $500,000. Settlement proceeds will be distributed on a pro rata basis, and Apotex has agreed to cooperate with plaintiffs in ongoing litigation against non-settling defendants.

***      ***      ***

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.