Last Week in Antitrust Litigation (#020)

Week of July 28, 2025

Top Takeaways

1. Vertical restraints in healthcare draw Sherman Act challenges: New filings spotlight the antitrust risks of mandatory tiering, anti-steering provisions, and price opacity in provider-insurer contracts.

2. Antitrust liability expands to financial backers of exclusionary conduct: Plaintiffs are testing theories of indirect monopolization by alleging that funders like Monroe Capital orchestrated and benefited from long-term market foreclosure.

3. Courts reinforce viability of aftermarket and pricing claims: Recent decisions denying dismissal or approving settlements suggest increased judicial receptiveness to claims involving aftermarket foreclosure, bundling, and coordinated pricing behavior.

New Cases Filed

Cement & Concrete v. N.Y. & Presbyterian Hosp. (S.D.N.Y. July 25, 2025): Plaintiff filed a complaint alleging that The New York and Presbyterian Hospital (“NYP”) used its power in the market for acute inpatient hospital services to impose anticompetitive restrictions on health plans in violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act. The complaint alleges that NYP required health plans to include all of its facilities in every plan at the top benefit tier, prohibited tiered or narrow networks that might exclude NYP, and imposed gag clauses to block price transparency—all to prevent insurers from steering patients to lower-cost competitors. Plaintiffs contend this conduct stifles price competition, enabling NYP to charge supracompetitive prices—up to 74% more than peers—without losing patient volume. Plaintiff seeks classwide treble damages, restitution, attorneys’ fees and costs, and injunctive relief barring NYP from enforcing these contract terms and continuing the alleged unlawful conduct.

Keller v. Monroe Cap. Corp. (D. Md. July 28, 2025): Plaintiffs filed a putative class action against Monroe Capital alleging that Monroe conspired with MV Realty to monopolize and restrain trade in the market for future residential real estate listing rights in violation of, among other things, Section 2 of the Sherman Act. Plaintiffs allege that Monroe financed and strategically directed MV Realty’s use of 40-year “Homeowner Benefit Agreements,” which deceived homeowners into signing exclusive listing contracts in exchange for modest cash payments, while recording lien-like memoranda that clouded title and restricted homeowners’ ability to sell or refinance. Plaintiffs claim this conduct harmed competition by foreclosing rival brokers, increasing barriers to entry, and distorting real estate markets through long-term encumbrances and inflated penalties. Plaintiffs seek class certification, treble damages, restitution, injunctive relief halting further use and enforcement of the agreements, declaratory relief voiding them, and attorneys’ fees and costs.

Artuso Pastry Foods Corp. v. Packaging Corp. of Am. (N.D. Ill. July 29, 2025): Plaintiff filed a putative class action against leading containerboard manufacturers, alleging a per se unlawful conspiracy to fix prices and restrict output for containerboard products in violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act. The complaint alleges that defendants coordinated at least seven parallel rounds of price increases from November 2020 until the present and concurrently closed manufacturing facilities to reduce capacity under a jointly adopted “value over volume” strategy, despite high capacity utilization and flat demand. Plaintiffs assert that this conduct resulted in artificially inflated prices in a consolidated, high-barrier, and inelastic market for largely interchangeable products, causing direct purchasers to pay supracompetitive prices. Plaintiff seeks class certification, treble damages, interest, injunctive and declaratory relief, and attorneys’ fees and costs.

Ellman Aesthetics, LLC v. BTL Indus., Inc. (S.D. Fl. July 30, 2025): Plaintiffs filed a complaint alleging that BTL Industries and affiliated entities engaged in unlawful price discrimination and monopolization in the body-contouring and skin-tightening market in violation of, among others, the Robinson-Patman Act, Sherman Act and the Florida Antitrust Act. Plaintiffs claim BTL imposed a non-negotiable minimum advertised price (MAP) of $850 per session for its body-contouring treatments, enforced through coercive penalties such as inflated consumable prices, $100,000 equipment recertification fees, and provider delisting, while selectively allowing favored providers to violate the MAP. Plaintiffs allege this scheme blocked market entry for new providers, eliminated price competition, and inflated consumer prices. The complaint seeks treble damages, injunctive relief, attorneys’ fees, and interest.

Richmond Specialty Script Inc. v. Richmond Univ. Med. Ctr. (E.D.N.Y. July 31, 2025): Richmond Specialty filed a complaint alleging that Richmond University Medical Center (“RUMC”) unlawfully monopolized the market for immediate, on-site outpatient pharmacy services for hospital discharge patients in violation of, among other things, Section 2 of the Sherman Act. Plaintiff alleges that RUMC exploited its dual role as landlord and 340B program partner to access proprietary business data, manufactured a sham lease dispute to evict Richmond Pharmacy, solicited its staff, and planned to open a hospital-run pharmacy in the same location to misappropriate its goodwill and trade on consumer confusion. The complaint asserts this conduct eliminated the only competitor in a distinct, captive market serving vulnerable discharge patients, thereby allowing RUMC to unilaterally control access, pricing, and service quality in that setting. Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief to stop the eviction and opening of the new pharmacy, treble damages, and attorneys’ fees and costs.

Follow-on cases that were filed include:

• Harvard Med. Fac. Physicians v. Blue Cross Blue Shield Ass'n (E.D. Pa. July 25, 2025) (alleging market allocation and price-fixing in health insurance industry like in CommonSpirit v. Blue Cross (N.D. Ill. Mar. 4, 2025))

• Close v. Hoyt Archery, Inc. (D. Utah July 28, 2025) (alleging defendants conspired to fix prices of archery equipment like in Santarlas v. Hoyt Archery, Inc. (D. Utah May 30, 2025))

• Diaz v. Bowtech, Inc. (E.D. Pa. July 29, 2025) (same)

• Sabatini v. Hoyt Archery, Inc. (D. Colo. July 30, 2025) (same)

• Wingfield v. NCAA (C.D. Cal. July 28, 2025) (alleging NCAA’s eligibility rules are anticompetitive like in Elad v. NCAA (D.N.J. Mar. 20, 2025))

• Martinson v. NCAA (D. Nev. July 30, 2025) (same)

• Van Horst Gen. Contractors, LLC v. United Rentals, Inc. (D. Conn. July 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))

• Collins v. Apple Inc. (N.D. Cal. July 30, 2025) (alleging Apple monopolized the smartphone market line in United States v. Apple Inc. (D.N.J. Mar. 21, 2024)) (alleging price-fixing conspiracy amount health insurers and third-party administrators like in In re Multiplan Health Ins. Provider Litig. (N.D. Ill.))

Dispositive Orders and Verdicts

Iskander v. Place at the Beach IV Home Owner’s Ass’n (D.S.C. July 29, 2025): In this pro se case alleging a conspiracy to restrain trade by coordinating HOA fees with neighboring associations rather than basing them on actual costs, in violation of, among other things, Section 1 of the Sherman Act, the magistrate judge recommended granting defendants’ motions to dismiss with prejudice. The court found that plaintiff’s antitrust claim failed because she alleged—in conclusory fashion only comparisons to other HOAs without facts showing concerted action or market impact.

Universal Turbine Parts, LLC v. Pratt & Whitney Canada Corp. (E.D. Pa. July 30, 2025): In this case alleging that Pratt & Whitney Canada and its affiliates engaged in exclusionary conduct—through exclusive dealing, bundling, refusal to deal, and supracompetitive pricing—in the market for aftermarket maintenance and repair services for airplane engines in violation of Section 2 of the Sherman Act, the court denied defendants’ motion to dismiss. The court held that: (a) plaintiff sufficiently alleged substantial foreclosure of competition by detailing how Pratt’s contractual restrictions on Designated Overhaul Facilities (DOFs) eliminated independent supply channels and led to loss of market choice, and (b) the alleged foreclosure adequately supported a plausible theory of antitrust injury at the pleading stage.

Sarafan Mobile Ltd. v. Apple Inc. (N.D. Cal. July 30, 2025): In this case alleging unlawful monopolization of the iOS app distribution market in violation of, among other things, Section 2 of the Sherman Act, the court granted Apple’s motion to dismiss the first amended complaint. As to the antitrust claims, the court held that (a) Sarafan did not plausibly allege consumer unawareness of Apple’s App Store exclusivity to support a single-brand aftermarket, rendering the “iOS App Distribution Market” facially unsustainable; and (b) Sarafan failed to allege any conduct by Apple that harmed competition rather than Sarafan specifically, such as market-wide effects on pricing or output.

Class Action Certifications and Settlements

In re Turkey Antitrust Litig. (N.D. Ill. July 29, 2025): In this case alleging a conspiracy to fix turkey prices in violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act, the court granted final approval of settlements between direct purchaser plaintiffs and Cooper Farms, Inc. and Farbest Foods, Inc. The settlements cover a certified class of entities that directly purchased certain fresh or frozen, uncooked turkey products in the U.S. from January 1, 2010 through December 31, 2016. The court found the settlements fair, reasonable, and adequate under Rule 23, dismissed the claims with prejudice, and barred all future claims against the settling defendants by class members who did not opt out; no objections were filed, and a small number of entities were excluded. The court also retained jurisdiction over settlement administration, distribution, and enforcement of the settlement terms.

Corzo v. Brown Univ. (N.D. Ill. July 30, 2025): In this class action alleging that universities conspired to suppress institutional financial aid, the court granted final approval of an $18.5 million settlement with Johns Hopkins University. The certified class includes U.S. citizens or permanent residents who received partial need-based financial aid for full-time undergraduate studies at Johns Hopkins between Fall 2021 and February 28, 2024 . The court approved a pro rata distribution plan based on net payments to defendants, attorneys’ fees of $6.17 million (one-third of the Johns Hopkins fund), $1.22 million in litigation expenses, and $1,250 service awards for each of the eight class representatives. No objections were filed, only six class members opted out, and distribution will occur after the claims process concludes.

In re Broiler Chicken Antitrust Litig. (N.D. Ill. July 30, 2025): In this class action, the court granted final approval of settlements between the Commercial and Institutional Indirect Purchaser Plaintiffs and several defendants, including Koch Foods, Sanderson Farms, Perdue, and Agri Stats. The court found the settlements fair, reasonable, and adequate under Rule 23, reaffirmed the previously certified class, and approved a pro rata plan of allocation based on purchase volume and type in specified Indirect Purchaser States. The court dismissed all claims with prejudice, approved the settlement releases, and noted that no objections were filed. Over 100 entities—including Perkins, Whataburger, Wawa, Cheesecake Factory, and numerous Caesars-affiliated properties—had previously opted out and are excluded from the class; no new exclusions were permitted in connection with these settlements.

***      ***      ***

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.