Last Week in Antitrust Litigation (#026)
- Kressin Powers
- Sep 14, 2025
- 7 min read
Week of September 8, 2025
Top Takeaways
Hospital Contracting and Certification Under Scrutiny: New cases against The New York and Presbyterian hospital and the Automotive Lift Institute highlight mounting challenges to exclusionary contracting and “pay-to-play” certification schemes across healthcare and industrial sectors.
Courts Reinforce Pleading and Standing Discipline: Dismissals in Bootler, 618Media, and Sports Rehab confirm that speculative harm, lack of competitor status, and weak exclusionary conduct allegations remain fatal under modern Twombly/Iqbal standards.
Major Settlement Caps Multi-Year Data Antitrust Battle: The $432 million settlement in Loop v. CDK Global closes one of the largest automotive data-sharing cases to date—illustrating both the scale of private antitrust exposure and courts’ willingness to approve complex distribution plans with nine-figure fee awards.
New Cases Filed
UFCW Local 1500 Welfare Fund v. N.Y. & Presbyterian Hosp. (E.D.N.Y. Sept. 8, 2025): Plaintiff filed a putative class action against The New York and Presbyterian Hospital (“NYP”) alleging that NYP engaged in exclusionary anti-steering contracting practices—including “all products” clauses, gag clauses, and single consolidated rate requirements—in the market for general acute care inpatient hospital services (“GAC Services”) in violation of, among others, the Sherman Act and the Donnelly Act. The complaint alleges that NYP conditioned network inclusion on insurers’ agreement not to steer patients toward lower-cost competitors, to include all NYP facilities in top plan tiers, to accept single consolidated rate requirements, and to suppress pricing transparency, and further retaliated against payors that attempted to design lower-cost plans. Plaintiff alleges that this conduct insulated NYP from competition, allowed it to charge supracompetitive prices for general acute care inpatient services, and deprived payors and patients of lower-cost, higher-quality alternatives.
Nat'l Auto Tools, Inc. v. Auto. Lift Inst., Inc. (N.D. Tex. Sept. 8, 2025): Plaintiff filed a complaint alleging Automotive Lift Institute, Inc. (“ALI”) and numerous lift manufacturers conspired to restrain trade in violation of, among others, the Sherman Act. The complaint alleges defendants operated a pay-to-play “gold certification” program through ALI, falsely certifying lifts that failed to meet ALI’s own safety standards as compliant while lobbying insurers and regulators to require certification, thereby forcing manufacturers to pay substantial fees or lose market access. Plaintiff contends that, by refusing to participate in this scheme, it was excluded from markets and imposed de facto royalties, foreclosed rivals, and diverted sales.
Yiwu Jieya E-Commerce Co. Ltd. v. Xu (W.D. Wash. Sept. 9, 2025): Plaintiff filed an amended complaint against Liang Xu and JUDYBRIDAL alleging fraudulent procurement and sham enforcement of a patent in violation of, among others, Section 2 of the Sherman Act. According to the complaint, defendants fraudulently obtained the patent despite prior public sales of the same rotating desk organizer design and then submitted bad-faith infringement complaints to Amazon to delist Yiwu Jieya’s competing products. Plaintiff contends that this conduct constitutes attempted monopolization of the market for rotating desk organizers on Amazon.
Syngenta Crop Prot. AG v. UPL Ltd. (E.D. Va. Sept. 11, 2025): Syngenta filed a complaint against UPL entities alleging unlawful monopolization and attempted monopolization of the U.S. crop protection markets in violation of, among others, Section 2 of the Sherman Act. According to Syngenta, UPL fraudulently procured and enforced the patents and pursuing baseless and sham litigation to harm competitors. Syngenta asserts that this exclusionary conduct foreclosed competition, delayed the launch of its own fungicidal products, raised barriers to entry, inflated mancozeb prices, and deprived farmers of innovative and effective crop protection options.
Bosslady Foods LLC v. Edible IP, LLC (D. Conn. Sept. 11, 2025): Bosslady filed a complaint against Edible Arrangements companies alleging attempted monopolization of the market for retail sale of frozen confection products in violation of, among other things, Section 2 of the Sherman Act. Bosslady contends that Edible asserted baseless infringement claims over “SWIZZLE”-formative marks, demanded abandonment of Bosslady’s “Tropical Sherbet Swizzle” brand, and filed a Notice of Opposition, despite knowing its registrations cover only dipped fruit and are invalid for genericism or fraud. The complaint alleges that Edible’s strategy is to suppress competition and drive Bosslady out of the frozen dessert market just as Edible plans to expand into that space, thereby insulating itself from price competition and harming consumer choice.
Follow-on cases that were filed include:
Insider, Inc. v. Google LLC (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 8, 2025) (alleging Google monopolized the ad server and ad exchange markets like in United States v. Google LLC (E.D. Va. Jan. 24, 2023))
PubMatic, Inc. v. Google LLC (E.D. Va. Sept. 8, 2025) (same)
CVS Pharmacy, Inc. v. Takeda Pharm. Co. Ltd. (N.D. Cal. Sept. 9, 2025) (alleging coordinated effort to limit competition in the Dexilant market through “reverse payment” and market allocation like in Walgreen Co. v. Takeda Pharm. Co. (N.D. Cal. Mar. 25, 2025))
Newsmax Broad., LLC v. Fox Corp. (W.D. Wis. Sept. 11, 2025) (refiling similar complaint in the Western District of Wisconsin as the complaint dismissed by the court in Newsmax Broad., LLC v. Fox Corp. (S.D. Fl. Sept. 3, 2025))
Dispositive Orders and Verdicts
Centene Corp. v. Merck & Co., Inc. (D.N.J. Sept. 4, 2025): In this case alleging anticompetitive conduct in the U.S. markets for Zetia and Vytorin in violation of, among others, the Sherman Act and various state antitrust laws, the court granted in part and denied in part defendants’ partial motion to dismiss. The court held that (a) plaintiffs’ Walker Process fraud, sham litigation, Orange Book listing, and derivative monopolistic scheme theories were insufficiently pled and dismissed, (b) the claims based on the antitrust laws of Vermont, Montana, Puerto Rico, and Rhode Island (as to pre-enactment injuries) were dismissed based on Illinois Brick, and (c) the per se conspiracy claim was dismissed based on a prior ruling.
Bootler, LLC v. Google, LLC (N.D. Ill. Sept. 4, 2025): In this case alleging, among other things, monopolization, attempted monopolization, monopoly leveraging, and restraint of trade in the “comparative restaurant delivery search market” in violation of the Sherman Act and the Illinois Antitrust Act, the court granted Google’s motion to dismiss. As to the antitrust claims, the court held that plaintiff failed to plead a cognizable antitrust injury because (a) a lack of innovation is not a cognizable antitrust injury, (b) its allegations of increased prices to consumers was speculative and conclusory, and undermined by the complaint’s admission that Google allows consumers to compare delivery options and fees, and (c) at best, the complaint alleges injury to the plaintiff alone.
Newsmax Broad., LLC v. Fox Corp. (S.D. Fl. Sept. 4, 2025): In this case alleging that Fox engaged in various anticompetitive conduct in the market for right-leaning pay TV news in violation of, among others the Sherman Act and the Florida Antitrust Act, the court sua sponte dismissed the complaint without prejudice on shotgun pleading grounds. The court found that the complaint improperly incorporated all preceding allegations into each successive count, rendering it an impermissible shotgun pleading under Eleventh Circuit precedent. The court granted plaintiff leave to replead by September 11, 2025, with a warning that failure to comply could result in dismissal of the case.
618Media Dijital Hizmetler Ltd. Sirketi v. Apple Inc. (N.D. Cal. Sept. 9, 2025): In this case alleging monopolization of the iOS app distribution market in violation, among other things, of Section 2 of the Sherman Act, the court granted Apple’s motion to dismiss with leave to amend. The court held that plaintiff failed to allege anticompetitive conduct or antitrust injury because (a) plaintiff’s allegations of same are untethered to facts alleged in the complaint and Apple’s decisions about which apps may access the App Store do not, without more, constitute antitrust injury.
Sports Rehab Consulting LLC v. Vail Clinic, Inc. (D. Colo. Sept. 10, 2025): In this case alleging monopolization and attempted monopolization of the physical therapy market in Colorado’s Vail Valley under Section 2 of the Sherman Act, the court granted Vail Health’s motion for summary judgment. The court held that plaintiffs waived their counterarguments by ignoring or failing to meaningfully address defendant’s arguments that (a) Vail Health’s litigation, petitioning, and related statements were immune under the Noerr-Pennington doctrine and in any event had only a de minimis effect on competition, (b) negotiations and letters of intent regarding a joint venture with local orthopedic groups never resulted in binding noncompete agreements and thus could not constitute exclusionary conduct, (c) non-solicitation provisions in therapist employment contracts and lease restrictions on tenants had legitimate business justifications and did not foreclose competition. Consequently, plaintiffs failed to show exclusionary conduct or antitrust standing, requiring dismissal of both Section 2 claims.
Class Action Certifications and Settlements
Loop LLC v. CDK Glob., LLC (W.D. Wisc. Sept. 10, 2025): In this class action alleging that defendant conspired with its competitor The Reynolds and Reynolds Company to unreasonably restrain trade in the data-integration services market, the court granted final approval of the settlement. The certified Vendor Class includes U.S. software vendors that purchased data integration services from CDK or Reynolds since October 2013, with Auto Rental Services LLC opting out. The court approved a distribution plan and awarded $185,157,529 in attorney’s fees, $12,358,238 in legal expenses, $200,000 in administrator expenses, $250,000 as a service award, and no less than $432,034,233 in cash relief to the class. The case was dismissed with prejudice, and settlement administration will proceed under court supervision.
*** *** ***
If you have any antirust questions or would like more information about any of these matters, please contact one of the following authors:
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.
Comments