Last Week in Antitrust Litigation (#024)

Week of August 25, 2025

Top Takeaways

1. Expanding AI–platform litigation: The X v. Apple/OpenAI complaint raises novel issues at the intersection of app-store control, data access, and exclusionary AI integration—indicating heightened exposure for digital platform operators.

2. Labor-market restraints in focus: The Enhanced Games litigation extends antitrust scrutiny to sports federations’ eligibility rules, reflecting a broader trend of challenges to concerted restrictions on worker mobility and compensation.

3. Heightened risk for vertical restraints: Courts are reaffirming that bundled discounts, de facto exclusivity, and tying may survive only if procompetitive justifications are clear and foreclosure minimal, placing pressure on companies to document competitive effects.

   
   

New Cases Filed

X Corp. v. Apple Inc. (N.D. Tex. Aug. 25, 2025): X filed a complaint against Apple and OpenAI, Inc. (and related entities) alleging unlawful agreements, monopolization, attempted monopolization, and conspiracy to monopolize the U.S. smartphone and generative AI chatbot markets in violation of the Sherman Act and the Texas Free Enterprise and Antitrust Act. X contends that Apple and OpenAI entered into an exclusive arrangement to integrate ChatGPT into iOS, making it the only generative AI chatbot accessible through iPhone’s native features, while Apple manipulated App Store rankings, delayed approvals, and denied featuring requests to disadvantage competing apps such as X’s Grok. According to the complaint, this conduct forecloses rivals from the scale and data needed to compete, reinforces OpenAI’s dominance in generative AI chatbots, protects Apple’s monopoly in smartphones from disruptive “super apps,” and harms consumers through reduced innovation, fewer choices, and supracompetitive prices. X seeks permanent injunctive relief to bar the exclusive arrangements and App Store discrimination, treble and punitive damages, restitution, pre- and post-judgment interest, and attorneys’ fees and costs.

Enhanced US LLC v. World Aquatics (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 27, 2025): Enhanced filed a complaint against World Aquatics, USA Swimming, and the World Anti-Doping Agency (“WADA”) alleging a conspiracy to foreclose competition in the market for international elite swimming competitions and the labor of elite swimmers, in violation of, among others, Sections 1 and 2 of the Sherman Act. According to the complaint, defendants jointly adopted and enforced World Aquatics’ new By-Law 10, which threatens lifetime bans on athletes, coaches, and other professionals who participate in or support the planned 2026 Enhanced Games, and issued coordinated public statements and investigations to intimidate potential participants. Enhanced contends that this exclusionary conduct prevents it from recruiting athletes and personnel, suppresses athlete compensation, and deprives fans of competitive alternatives. Enhanced seeks declaratory and permanent injunctive relief, treble damages of no less than $200 million for each Sherman Act violation, and attorneys’ fees and costs.

Eliza Labs, Inc. v. X Corp. (N.D. Cal. Aug. 27, 2025): Eliza Labs its founder filed a complaint against X Corporation alleging exclusionary conduct and monopolization in the market of “short form public posting” social media violation of, among others, Section 2 of the Sherman Act. Plaintiffs assert that X induced them to share proprietary technical know-how under false pretenses, demanded exorbitant “Enterprise License” fees, deplatformed their accounts, and then launched copycat AI agents that mirrored Eliza’s open-source innovations. According to the complaint, X’s actions harmed competition by eliminating Eliza as a rival in the emerging market for AI agents on social media, foreclosing open-source and small-developer participation, and leveraging X’s dominance in short-form public posting to entrench its own affiliated AI ventures. Plaintiffs seek injunctive relief restoring their access to the X platform, prohibiting X from blocking links to or distribution of their AI tools, treble damages, declaratory relief, and attorneys’ fees and costs.

Brightman v. Toshiba Am. Bus. Sols., Inc. (C.D. Cal. Aug. 28, 2025): Plaintiffs filed a complaint against Toshiba alleging monopolization and attempted monopolization of distribution channels of Toshiba-brand OEM toner cartridges in violation of, among other things, Section 2 of the Sherman Act. Plaintiffs contend that Toshiba engaged in various anticompetitive conduct such as leveraging an exclusive dealer network, disseminating false information, and weaponizing civil, regulatory, and criminal proceedings. According to plaintiffs, this exclusionary campaign foreclosed competition, raised barriers to entry, suppressed consumer choice, and drove up toner prices while causing Brightman’s wrongful conviction—later reversed on appeal—and the shutdown of Copy Com’s Independent Cartridge business. Plaintiffs seek $10 million in damages (trebled), permanent injunctive relief against Toshiba’s exclusionary practices, declaratory relief, attorneys’ fees and costs, and pre-judgment interest.

Follow-on cases that were filed include:

• Richards v. Google LLC (W.D. Va. Aug. 22, 2025) (alleging Google engaged in anticompetitive conduct in search markets like in United States v. Google LLC (D.D.C. Oct. 20, 2020))

• Twp. of Middletown v. RB Glob., Inc. (N.D. Ill. Aug. 27, 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))

Dispositive Orders and Verdicts

Applied Med. Res. Corp. v. Medtronic, Inc. (C.D. Cal. Aug. 15, 2025): In this case alleging that Medtronic used bundled discounts and de facto exclusive dealing arrangements with hospitals and group purchasing organizations to maintain monopoly power in the market for advanced bipolar surgical devices in violation of Sections 1 and 2 of the Sherman Act and Section 3 of the Clayton Act, the court denied Medtronic’s motion for summary judgment. The court found that (a) Applied raised triable issues of fact that hundreds of Medtronic’s bundled discounts fail the Ninth Circuit’s Discount Attribution Test and could exclude an equally efficient competitor, and rejected Medtronic’s argument that substantial foreclosure is required, (b) Applied presented sufficient evidence that Medtronic’s generator lock-in, capital equipment financing agreements, and restrictions on competitive product trials could render its local and GPO tier agreements de facto exclusive dealing foreclosing at least 24% of the market, and (c) Applied showed a triable issue of antitrust injury because restricted growth, higher prices, and barriers to competition—even though competitors remain in the market and Applied admitted it is equally efficient—are sufficient to meet the injury standard.

Boyd v. NCAA (M.D. Tenn. Aug. 22, 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 motion for a preliminary injunction seeking an additional year of eligibility. The court found that (a) Boyd was unlikely to succeed on the merits because his evidence showed only personal harm and failed to demonstrate a substantial anticompetitive effect in the relevant market, and the NCAA’s time-limit rules were supported by procompetitive justifications including preserving opportunities for new athletes, maintaining the distinction between college and professional sports, and aligning athletics with academics, (b) although Boyd established irreparable harm in being denied the opportunity to play, the delay in seeking relief undermined the urgency of his claim, and (c) the balance of equities and public interest weighed against an injunction, as granting him eligibility would displace another athlete and destabilize NCAA eligibility rules.

Cap. Radiology LLC v. Univ. of Md. Med. Sys. (D. Md. Aug. 12, 2025): In this case alleging unlawful restraints of trade and monopolization in the outpatient radiology services market in Prince George’s County in violation of, among other things, Sections 1 and 2 of the Sherman Act, the Clayton Act, and the Maryland Antitrust Act, the court granted defendants’ motions to dismiss the second amended complaint. The court held that the antitrust claims failed because plaintiff did not plausibly allege an “antitrust injury,” as the complaint lacked facts showing plaintiff lost customers, revenues, or missed opportunities for patient referrals, or a causal connection.

Musharbash v. U.S. Anesthesia Partners, Inc. (S.D. Tex. Aug. 26, 2025): In this case alleging that Welsh Carson conspired with U.S. Anesthesia Partners, Inc. (“USAP”) to monopolize hospital anesthesia services in Texas in violation of the Sherman Act, the court granted Welsh Carson’s motion to dismiss with prejudice and denied USAP’s motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(1) for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction based on standing. The court held that (a) all claims against Welsh Carson were time-barred because the alleged misconduct occurred outside the limitations period and plaintiff failed to plausibly plead either a continuing violation or fraudulent concealment to toll the statute of limitations, and (b) plaintiff’s Section 2 claims against USAP survived because allegations that USAP exploited leverage from a monopolization scheme to inflate anesthesia prices sufficiently alleged antitrust injury-in-fact and standing.

Hajjar v. St. Luke's Health Sys., Ltd. (D. Idaho Aug. 27, 2025): In this case alleging unlawful restraints and monopolization of the professional and hospital neurosurgical services markets in southwestern Idaho in violation of, among others, the Sherman Act and the Idaho Competition Act, the court granted defendants’ motion to dismiss the Second Amended Complaint with prejudice as to the antitrust claims. The court held that (a) plaintiffs failed to allege anticompetitive conduct because St. Luke’s had no duty to subsidize independent neurosurgeons’ call coverage and did not fall within conditional refusal-to-deal or Aspen Skiing exceptions, (b) plaintiffs did not plausibly allege harm to competition since their allegations described only injury to themselves and lacked any causal link between the call coverage policy and higher prices, and (c) plaintiffs failed to allege antitrust injury, particularly in the hospital services market where they were not participants, rendering further amendment futile.

Innovative Health LLC v. Biosense Webster, Inc. (C.D. Cal. Aug. 27, 2025): In this case alleging unlawful tying and monopolization in the markets for the sale of high-density mapping catheters and ultrasound catheters in violation of Sections 1 and 2 of the Sherman Act and California’s Cartwright Act, the court granted plaintiff’s motion for a permanent injunction against Biosense Webster. The court ordered that (a) Biosense may not condition clinical support or CARTO system access on the purchase of its own consumables or discriminate against customers using rival reprocessed devices, (b) Biosense is barred from deploying new blocking technology intentionally designed to prevent interoperability with non-Biosense consumables, and (c) Biosense may not collect consumables it cannot legally reprocess, subject to certain exceptions, with additional compliance obligations including semiannual reports, notice to customers and employees (including a compliance hotline), a five-year term of court supervision, and continuing jurisdiction of the court.

Class Action Certifications and Settlements

Tobler v. 1248 Holdings, LLC (D. Kan. Aug. 21, 2025): In this proposed class action against financial services and investment firms, the court preliminarily approved a settlement and certified a settlement class. The class consists of individuals employed by 1248 Holdings, Mariner, Montage Investments and related affiliates (≥50% owned), various Tortoise entities (including Ecofin and related subsidiaries), and American Century entities between January 1, 2012 and December 31, 2020. The court approved the notice plan and allocation framework, appointed Stueve Siegel Hanson LLP and Rowdy Meeks Legal Group LLC as class counsel and Simpluris, Inc. as administrator, and set a final approval hearing for December 4, 2025.

In re Concrete & Cement Additives Antitrust Litig. (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 27, 2025): In this case alleging that multiple corporate groups conspired to fix prices in the market for concrete admixtures, cement additives, and related products (“CCAs”) in violation of, among other things, Section 1 of the Sherman Act and various state antitrust laws, the court preliminarily approved a settlement with Saint-Gobain and certified a direct purchaser settlement class consisting of all U.S. purchasers of concrete and cement additives from defendants between January 1, 2017 and preliminary approval. The court appointed Hausfeld LLP as class counsel, designated Huntington Bank as escrow agent and JND Legal Administration as settlement administrator, and deferred notice, allocation, and fee determinations until additional settlements are preliminarily approved.

***      ***      ***

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.