Last Week in Antitrust Litigation (#017)

Week of July 7, 2025

Top Takeaways

1. Expanding private enforcement trends: A wave of follow-on complaints underscores the growing strategic use of prior filings to advance horizontal conspiracy theories in multiple sectors.

2. Threshold plausibility tightening: Courts are emphasizing the need for robust market definitions and non-conclusory allegations of market power, even where standing is uncontested.

3. Contractual language defeats theory: In Mirage Wine + Spirits v. Apple, the court found the express terms of inter-platform agreements dispositive, reinforcing the evidentiary role of commercial contracts in antitrust conspiracy pleading.

New Cases Filed

No new antitrust cases were filed this week.

Follow-on cases that were filed include:

• Hayden v. RB Glob., Inc. (D. Conn. July 3, 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))

• Rukeyser v. Shenzhen Smoore Tech. Co. (S.D. Fl. July 3, 2025) (alleging conspiracy to fix prices and not compete in the wholesale distribution of cannabis oil vaporizer systems and components like in Earth’s Healing, Inc. v. Shenzhen Smoore Tech. Co. (N.D. Cal. Feb. 11, 2025))

• Bellamy v. NCAA (M.D. Tenn. July 3, 2025) (alleging NCAA’s eligibility rules are anticompetitive like in Elad v. NCAA (D.N.J. Mar. 20, 2025))

• Giles v. NCAA (C.D. Cal. July 9, 2025) (same)

• Sw. Airlines Co. v. Actavis Holdco U.S., Inc. (alleging conspiracy to fix and maintain prices of generic drugs like in In re Generic Pharms. Pricing Antitrust Litig. (E.D. Pa.))

• Janochoski v. Hoyt Archery, Inc. (D. Minn. July 7, 2025) (alleging conspiracy to fix prices of archery equipment like in Santarlas v. Hoyt Archery, Inc. (D. Utah May 30, 2025))

  
  

Dispositive Orders and Verdicts

Spotless Bins Ga., LLC v. Sparkling Bins Bus., LLC (N.D. Ga. July 3, 2025): In this case alleging a territorial allocation agreement in the market for garbage-bin-cleaning services and retrofitted truck equipment in violation of, among other things, Section 1 of the Sherman Act and seeking individual liability under Section 24 of the Clayton Act for shareholder liability, the court granted defendants’ motion to dismiss with prejudice the antitrust claims. The court held that plaintiff adequately alleged antitrust standing as plaintiff was a “direct victim” of an alleged injury of the type the antitrust laws were intended to prevent, and an agreement to restrain trade (i.e., territory allocation). However, the court further held that plaintiff did not plausibly allege actual anticompetitive effects or sufficient indirect evidence of market power, relying instead on conclusory allegations without a defined relevant product or geographic market, and (b) because the Section 24 claim depended on a viable underlying antitrust violation, it necessarily failed as well.

Boyd v. NCAA (M.D. Tenn. July 3, 2025): In this case alleging that NCAA bylaws restricting athletes’ eligibility based on time spent at NAIA institutions constitute an unlawful agreement in restraint of trade under Section 1 of the Sherman Act and the Tennessee Trade Practices Act, the court denied plaintiff’s request for a temporary restraining order (“TRO”) and deferred ruling on his request for a preliminary injunction. Plaintiff sought to: (a) enjoin the NCAA from applying its “Five-Year Rule” and “Eligibility Clock” to his time at an NAIA institution, (b) compel the NCAA to grant a waiver allowing him to compete in the 2025–26 season, (c) declare him eligible to play during that season, and (d) enjoin the NCAA from enforcing its “Rule of Restitution” against institutions relying on court-ordered relief. The court held that: (a) plaintiff failed to demonstrate irreparable harm justifying an ex parte TRO, as he did not show why 14-day relief would prevent injury before a preliminary injunction hearing, (b) the TRO would alter, not preserve, the status quo, which includes the challenged NCAA rules, and (c) because these requirements were not met, the TRO was denied while briefing on the preliminary injunction was permitted to proceed.

Mirage Wine + Spirit’s LLC v. Apple Inc. (S.D. Ill. July 9, 2025): In this putative class action alleging an unlawful horizontal market allocation conspiracy in the U.S. market for point-of-sale payment card network services, where Apple allegedly agreed not to create a competing network in exchange for fees collected from card issuers by Visa and Mastercard, the court granted defendants’ motions to dismiss the amended complaint without prejudice. Defendants sought dismissal on the grounds that: (a) the Payment Platform Agreements (“PPAs”) contradicted plaintiffs’ allegations of a per se unlawful market allocation agreement; (b) plaintiffs failed to allege facts supporting an unlawful agreement or conspiracy; and (c) plaintiffs lacked antitrust standing because their alleged injury rested on an attenuated and speculative causal chain. The court held that: (a) plaintiffs’ direct allegations were contradicted by the express terms of the PPAs, rendering the alleged agreement implausible, and the circumstantial allegations failed to demonstrate concerted action or “plus factors” indicative of a conspiracy; and (b) plaintiffs’ injury was too indirect and speculative to support antitrust standing, relying on conjecture that Apple would have entered and succeeded in the payment network market, leading to reduced network fees.

***      ***      ***

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.