Last Week in Antitrust Litigation (#019)

Week of July 21, 2025

Top Takeaways

1. Rule-of-Reason Scrutiny Expands in College Sports: In Braham v. NCAA, the court found the Five-Year Rule likely fails under the rule-of-reason framework, reinforcing the shift toward heightened antitrust scrutiny of eligibility restrictions and labor market restraints in collegiate athletics.

2. Summary Judgment on Per Se Liability Based on Prior Admissions: Generic drug companies were found to have violated antitrust law based on prior admissions, simplifying the case for state attorneys general.

3. Proliferation of Follow-On Litigation Signals Heightened Risk: A surge in derivative antitrust filings across insurance, construction, and collectibles markets underscores a persistent trend: plaintiffs leveraging prior complaints to press new, parallel claims in adjacent jurisdictions.

New Cases Filed

PMM Holdings, LLC v. William W. Meyer & Sons, Inc. (E.D. Cal. July 17, 2025): PMM Holdings and a subsidiary filed a complaint alleging that DHG, Inc. and William W. Meyer & Sons, Inc. engaged in anticompetitive conduct in the airlock rotary feeder market violation of, among other things, the Sherman Act and California’s antitrust law. According to the complaint, DHG and Meyer obtained Precision’s confidential rotary feeder designs under the pretense of exploring a business relationship, then collaborated to reverse engineer and produce unauthorized competing products. Plaintiffs allege this conduct harmed competition by excluding Precision from a key segment of the feeder market, redirecting orders to Meyer, and coercing a key contract manufacturer to cease purchasing directly from Precision. Plaintiffs seek injunctive relief, monetary and punitive damages, disgorgement of profits, and attorneys’ fees and costs.

Follow-on cases that were filed include:

• Tx. Health Res. v. Blue Cross Blue Shield Ass'n (N.D. Ill. July 21, 2025) (alleging market allocation and price-fixing in health insurance industry like in CommonSpirit v. Blue Cross (N.D. Ill. Mar. 4, 2025))

• Coneco Bldg. LLC v. RB Glob., Inc. (N.D. Ill. July 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))

• PS Bruckel, Inc. v. RB Glob., Inc. (D. Conn. July 24, 2025) (same)

• Nachman v. Fanatics, Inc. (S.D.N.Y. July 24, 2025) (alleging conspiracy resulting in inflated prices for sports trading cards like in Scaturo v. Fanatics, Inc. (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 17, 2025))

Dispositive Orders and Verdicts

Pryor v. NCAA (S.D. Ohio July 18, 2025): In this case alleging a horizontal agreement among the NCAA, the Big Ten Conference, Learfield Communications, and Ohio State University to fix the price of college athletes’ publicity rights in violation of, among other things, Section 1 of the Sherman Act, the court granted all defendants’ motions to dismiss. Defendants sought dismissal of the Sherman Act claim on the grounds that: (a) Ohio State was immune under the Eleventh Amendment; (b) Pryor’s claims were untimely under the Sherman Act’s four-year statute of limitations; and (c) Pryor lacked Article III standing and antitrust standing. The court held that: (a) Ohio State was entitled to sovereign immunity because it is an arm of the state and none of the proposed exceptions—including Lanham Act abrogation, commercial activity, or the Ex parte Young doctrine—applied; (b) the claims were time-barred as the challenged conduct occurred no later than 2010 and neither the continuing violation doctrine, fraudulent concealment, nor laches extended the limitations period; and (c) Pryor had Article III standing based on alleged lost compensation, but the court did not reach antitrust standing because it dismissed the Sherman Act claim on other grounds.

Braham v. NCAA (D. Nev. July 18, 2025): In this case alleging an unlawful restraint of trade under Section 1 of the Sherman Act based on the NCAA’s enforcement of its “Five-Year Rule” limiting junior college (“JUCO”) football players’ eligibility to compete at the Division I level, the court granted plaintiff’s motion for a preliminary injunction. Plaintiff sought: (a) to enjoin enforcement of the Five-Year Rule (Bylaw 12.8.1) as applied to his JUCO participation; (b) to enjoin the Rule of Restitution (Bylaw 12.11.4.2), which allows retroactive penalties if a court injunction is later vacated; and (c) although Braham also challenged the 2-4 Transfer GPA Rule (Bylaw 14.5.4.3(d)), the court declined to reach it after finding success on the Five-Year Rule claim. The court held that (a) the Five-Year Rule is commercial in nature and likely violates Section 1 under the rule-of-reason framework due to its substantial anticompetitive effects on the Division I football labor market, the NCAA’s failure to offer sufficient procompetitive justifications, and the existence of less restrictive alternatives; (b) Braham demonstrated irreparable harm including the loss of a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to play Division I football, associated NIL opportunities, and negative effects on his well-being; and (c) the equities and public interest favored relief to promote fair competition and prevent the exclusion of JUCO athletes from economic and athletic opportunity.

Dai v. SAS Inst. Inc. (N.D. Cal. July 18, 2025): In this case asserting a hub-and-spoke conspiracy in the hotel room market involving revenue management software and several major hotel chains under Section 1 of the Sherman Act, the court granted defendants’ motion to dismiss the Sherman Act § 1 claim with leave to amend. The court held that: (a) plaintiffs failed to allege when any hotel defendant began using IDeaS or adopted its recommendations, rendering the allegations of parallel conduct implausible; and (b) plaintiffs’ “plus factor” allegations—such as the sharing of confidential information against their self-interest, industry motive stemming from COVID-19, and participation in IDeaS-hosted events—were either conclusory or unsupported by facts, and were insufficient to support an inference of agreement; accordingly, the court dismissed the claim but granted leave to amend because it could not conclude amendment would be futile.

Connecticut v. Sandoz, Inc. (D. Conn. July 21, 2025): In this case alleging price fixing, market allocation, and bid rigging in the sale of three generic drugs in violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act and state antitrust laws, the court granted the plaintiff States’ motion for partial summary judgment against Sandoz, Taro Pharmaceuticals , and Hector Armando Kellum. The States sought summary judgment solely on the “violation” or “per se liability” element of their claims, arguing that: (a) Sandoz and Taro admitted to per se antitrust violations through Rule 36 admissions mirroring their deferred prosecution agreements; and (b) Kellum, a former Sandoz executive, admitted similar conduct in his criminal guilty plea and subsequent civil admissions. The court held that (a) Sandoz and Taro’s Rule 36 admissions established their participation in per se unlawful conspiracies to fix prices and allocate customers for the three drugs between 2013 and 2015, (b) Kellum’s admissions conclusively established his participation in the same conspiracy during that period, and (c) these admissions satisfied the “violation” element of the federal and state antitrust claims, thereby granting summary judgment on that limited ground while reserving issues of injury, causation, damages, and affirmative defenses for later proceedings.

BuzzBallz, LLC v. MPL Brands NV, Inc. (N.D. Cal. July 22, 2025): In this case alleging counterclaims for, among other things, Walker Process fraud and attempted monopolization in the market for “small-format ready-to-drink cocktails” in violation of Section 2 of the Sherman Act, the court granted BuzzBallz’s motion to dismiss the antitrust counterclaims without prejudice. The court held that: (a) the attempted monopolization claim was dismissed for failing to plead any relevant geographic market and the product market of “small-format ready-to-drink cocktails” was facially unstainable, (b) such claim also failed for lack of allegations of a dangerous probability of monopoly power, and (c) the asserted conduct was protected by Noerr-Pennington immunity, warranting dismissal of the Walker Process fraud claim.

Class Action Certifications and Settlements

In re Interest Rate Swaps Antitrust Litig. (S.D.N.Y. July 17, 2025): In this class action alleging collusion among major financial institutions in the market for interest rate swaps, the court granted final approval of a settlement with several newly settling defendants, including Bank of America, Barclays, Citigroup, Deutsche Bank, Goldman Sachs, JPMorgan, Morgan Stanley, NatWest, and UBS. The certified settlement class includes all persons or entities that entered into U.S. interest rate swap transactions with any defendant during the class period. The court found the settlement fair, reasonable, and adequate, citing experienced counsel, arm’s-length negotiations, and minimal opt-outs with no objections. The settlement bars further claims against the settling defendants, preserves claims against non-settling parties, and permits administration of the settlement fund to proceed.

Caccuri v. Sony Interactive Ent. LLC (N.D. Cal. July 17, 2025): In this putative class action concerning digital game purchases on the PlayStation platform, the court denied preliminary approval of a proposed $7.85 million class settlement. The court found that the motion failed to comply with the Northern District of California’s Procedural Guidance for Class Action Settlements, including by omitting key information about estimated class recovery, discount justification, and the lack of comparable outcomes. The court also raised concerns about the proposed use of PlayStation Network account credits as settlement compensation and class definition changes that could exclude injured members. The plaintiffs may file a revised motion within 30 days that addresses these deficiencies or must submit a joint status report within 45 days outlining how the case should proceed.

***      ***      ***

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.