Last Week in Antitrust Litigation (#023)

Week of August 18, 2025

Top Takeaways

1. Section 1 and 2 claims proliferate: Recent filings highlight refusal-to-deal, tying, and coordinated pricing theories—reinforcing that both monopolization and horizontal restraints remain active enforcement fronts.

2. Diverging antitrust treatment of eligibility rules: The Fifth and Ninth Circuits continue to characterize eligibility rules as noncommercial, while the Northern District of West Virginia found them commercial in the NIL era—deepening doctrinal splits likely to attract appellate attention.

3. Structural remedies gain traction: The Blue Cross settlement combines $2.8B in monetary relief with $17.3B in estimated non-monetary reforms, reflecting courts’ increased willingness to endorse hybrid remedies that reshape market practices.

   
   

New Cases Filed

Tsalach Holdings, LLC v. Experian Info. Sols., Inc. (C.D. Cal. Aug. 18, 2025): Tsalach Holdings filed a complaint against Experian Information Solutions alleging unlawful monopolization and refusal to deal in the market of business/consumer credit data aggregation and furnishing violation of, among other things, Section 2 of the Sherman Ac. The complaint asserts that Experian, a dominant credit bureau, abruptly terminated Blessing Capital’s data furnishing agreement despite its full compliance, sent false leads to portray it as a credit repair service, suppressed its positive credit data for minority clients, and favored its own competing products like Experian Boost and Experian Go. The complaint seeks treble damages, pre- and post-judgment interest, and attorneys’ fees and costs.

City of La Crosse v. Oshkosh Corp. (E.D. Wisc. Aug. 20, 2025): The City of La Crosse filed a putative class action against three fire truck manufacturers and the Fire Apparatus Manufacturers’ Association alleging conspiracies to coordinate price increases, restrain production, and to exchange competitively sensitive information in the market for fire trucks in violation of, among other things, Section 1 of the Sherman Act and Wisconsin’s antitrust law. The complaint alleges that defendants coordinated through acquisitions, dealer consolidation, and the Fire Apparatus Manufacturers’ Association to suppress supply, share non-public data, and impose “floating prices,” resulting in increased fire truck prices and delivery delays. Plaintiffs contend this conduct forced municipalities to overpay for essential fire trucks, delay fleet replacement, and divert funds from other public services. The City seeks class certification, treble damages, injunctive relief barring further anticompetitive conduct and information exchanges, pre- and post-judgment interest, and attorneys’ fees and costs.

Wallis v. Holcomb Corp. (N.D. Cal. Aug. 21, 2025): Plaintiffs filed a complaint against The Holcomb Corporation, Seascape Resort Ltd., and Kyla, Kay, and Lois Holcomb, alleging an unlawful tying arrangement and monopolization of property management services at Seascape Resort in violation of, among other things, the Sherman Act. Plaintiffs contend that defendants conditioned access to essential resort amenities—including pools, fire pits, and recreational areas—on unit owners’ exclusive use of defendants’ rental management program, threatened criminal sanctions against those using alternatives, interfered with competing agencies, and coerced renters to switch to SRL-managed units. The complaint asserts that this conduct eliminated independent rental managers, inflated costs, reduced consumer choice, and diminished the value and marketability of owners’ units. Plaintiffs seek treble damages, declaratory and injunctive relief, restitution and disgorgement, attorneys’ fees and costs, and pre and post judgment interest.

Follow-on cases that were filed include:

• Auld v. Fanatics, Inc. (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 18, 2025) (alleging conspiracy resulting in inflated prices for sports trading cards like in Scaturo v. Fanatics, Inc. (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 17, 2025))

• Mem'l Hosp. for Cancer & Allied Diseases v. Blue Cross & Blue Shield Ass'n (N.D. Cal. Aug. 20, 2025) (alleging market allocation and price-fixing in health insurance industry like in CommonSpirit v. Blue Cross (N.D. Ill. Mar. 4, 2025))

• Cardtronics USA, Inc. v. Visa, Inc. (D.D.C. Aug. 20, 2025) (alleging illegal agreements regarding ATM “Access Fee Rules” like in Nat’l ATM Council, Inc. v. Visa, Inc. (D.D.C. Oct. 12, 2011)).

  
  

Dispositive Orders and Verdicts

Wang v. Laview Eagle Eye Tech. Inc. (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 14, 2025): In this case alleging Laview and Amazon restrained competition in the market for light bulb security cameras sold on Amazon in violation of the Sherman Act, the court granted Laview’s motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction and improper venue. The court held that (a) plaintiffs failed to establish general or specific jurisdiction under New York’s long-arm statute or due process because Laview had no offices, employees, or sufficient in-state contacts and conclusory allegations of disrupted sales in New York were inadequate, (b) the antitrust and tort claims did not show an articulable nexus between Laview’s alleged conduct and New York sufficient to satisfy § 302(a), and (c) venue was improper under 28 U.S.C. § 1400(b) because Laview is incorporated in California and plaintiffs failed to show it had a regular and established place of business in New York, warranting dismissal without prejudice.

Giles v. NCAA, Robinson v. NCAA, and Wingfield v. NCAA (C.D. Cal. Aug. 18, 2025):  In these three cases alleging that the NCAA’s “Five-Year Rule” and related eligibility restrictions unlawfully restrained trade by limiting student-athletes’ ability to compete and earn NIL compensation in violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act, the court denied plaintiffs’ motions for a preliminary injunction. The court held that: (a) plaintiffs were unlikely to succeed on the merits because the Five-Year Rule is a “true eligibility rule” not regulating commercial activity under O’Bannon and related precedent, plaintiffs failed to define a cognizable relevant market, and they showed no substantial anticompetitive effect beyond individual harms; (b) while some harms from missing practices and games were recognized, plaintiffs did not establish irreparable harm given their delay in seeking relief and independent ineligibility issues (including the NCAA’s agent, draft, and progress-toward-degree rules); (c) the balance of equities was at best neutral since relief would displace other athletes; and (d) the public interest was not advanced because no anticompetitive effect was shown, thus all Winter factors weighed against injunctive relief.

Chandler v. Cooper (N.D. Tex. Aug. 20, 2025): In this case alleging, among other things, that the National Association of Intercollegiate Athletics (“NAIA”) unlawfully restrained trade under Section 1 of the Sherman Act by enforcing an eligibility rule limiting athletes to ten semesters of participation, the court granted NAIA’s motion to dismiss with prejudice. The court found that (a) NAIA’s eligibility rules are noncommercial in nature and therefore not subject to antitrust scrutiny based on controlling Fifth Circuit precedent and consistent with other courts’ reasoning that eligibility rules regulate competition rather than commerce, (b) even if subject to antitrust law, the plaintiff failed to plead a plausible relevant market by arbitrarily excluding other intercollegiate athletic associations, and (c) any amendment would be futile because the challenged eligibility rule is not a restraint of trade, warranting dismissal of the Sherman Act claim.

Robinson v. NCCA (N.D.W. Va. Aug, 20, 2025): In this case alleging that the NCAA’s “Five-Year Rule” and related eligibility bylaws unlawfully restrict the ability of former junior-college football players to compete in Division I athletics in violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act, the court granted plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction, allowing four athletes to immediately play for West Virginia University in the 2025–26 season. The court held that (a) the bylaws were commercial in nature in the NIL and revenue-sharing era and plaintiffs showed a likelihood of success under the rule of reason because JUCO participation counts against Division I eligibility in a way that excludes athletes, distorts the Division I football labor market, and forecloses NIL and revenue opportunities, (b) plaintiffs would suffer irreparable harm by permanently losing a season of competition, national exposure, and NIL earning potential, harms that could not be remedied later, and (c) the balance of equities and public interest favored relief.

Class Action Certifications and Settlements

In re Blue Cross Blue Shield Antitrust Litig. (N.D. Ala. Aug. 19, 2025): In this long-running antitrust MDL, the court granted final approval of a nationwide settlement resolving provider claims against Blue Cross Blue Shield entities. The settlement establishes a $2.8 billion fund for distribution to healthcare providers and includes sweeping structural reforms to the BlueCard program, provider contracting rules, and data transparency commitments, which experts valued at more than $17.3 billion. The settlement class covers nearly all U.S. providers who contracted with Blue Plans between July 24, 2008 and October 4, 2024. The court approved the plan of distribution and established a monitoring committee to oversee compliance for five years; while only three objections were filed and overruled, more than 15,000 providers opted out of the settlement, including over 7,000 affiliated with SCP Health.

In re Effexor XR Antitrust Litig. (D.N.J. Aug. 19, 2025): In this indirect purchaser antitrust class action against Teva concerning Effexor XR and its AB-rated generics, the court granted final approval of a class settlement with Teva. The certified settlement class covers indirect purchasers and reimbursers in several states between June 14, 2008 and May 31, 2011, with no objections and a single opt-out. The court approved the plan of allocation and awarded class counsel $765,000 in fees (34% of the fund) plus $5,848.65 in expenses, finding the settlement the product of extensive arm’s-length negotiations and fair, reasonable, and adequate.

***      ***      ***

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.