Last Week in Antitrust Litigation (#032)
- Kressin Powers
- Oct 26, 2025
- 4 min read
Week of October 20, 2025
Top Takeaways
Platform Power and Exclusion in the Crosshairs: New suits against HostGPO and Rippa spotlight growing antitrust exposure for companies using distribution controls, exclusivity clauses, or retaliatory tactics to police resale pricing or supplier access.
Private Enforcement Extends Across Industries: The latest filings—from heavy equipment to hospitality—show that plaintiffs are testing traditional monopolization and boycott theories in both industrial and platform-based markets.
Labor and Sports Settlements Reflect Ongoing Exposure: Preliminary approvals in the JBS wage-fixing and World Aquatics cases demonstrate courts’ continued endorsement of significant monetary and behavioral remedies in class action resolutions.
New Cases Filed
Gold v. Rippa Machinery Grp. Co. (S.D.W. Va. Oct. 20, 2025): Plaintiffs True Force and Ari Gold filed a complaint against Rippa Machinery Group and affiliated entities alleging they engaged in various forms of anticompetitive conduct in the heavy machinery market in violation of, among other things, the Sherman and Clayton Acts. Plaintiffs claim that Rippa and its U.S. distributors conspired to fix resale prices for Rippa-brand excavators and to boycott True Force after it refused to join a price-fixing scheme. According to the complaint, Rippa representatives demanded that True Force raise its advertised prices and, after refusal, retaliated by cutting off supply, removed it from the list of authorized Rippa dealers, fulfilling orders with defective products, and reassigning West Virginia dealership rights to a competitor.
Minoan Experience, Inc. v. HostGPO Sols., Inc. (D.N.J. Oct. 22, 2025): Minoan Experience filed suit against HostGPO Solutions alleging anticompetitive conduct in the market for one-stop platforms for buying vacation rental furnishings in violation of, among others, the Sherman Act. The complaint claims HostGPO unlawfully maintained monopoly power in the market for one-stop furnishing platforms for short-term rental hosts by imposing anticompetitive supplier contracts—namely (a) exclusive-dealing and post-termination non-compete clauses that barred suppliers from working with rivals like Minoan, and (b) “no-price-competition” provisions that fixed minimum prices across channels.
The follow-on cases that were filed are:
CMI Marketing, Inc. v. Google LLC (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 17, 2025) (alleging Google monopolized the ad server and ad exchange markets like in United States v. Google LLC (E.D. Va. Jan. 24, 2023))
GFC & Supply Inc. v. TikTok Inc. (C.D. Cal. Oct. 20, 2025) (alleging conspiracy resulting in inflated prices for sports memorabilia like in Scaturo v. Fanatics, Inc. (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 17, 2025))
KPH Healthcare Servs., Inc. v. Bausch Health Cos. Inc. (D.R.I. Oct. 21, 2025) (alleging defendants agreed to delay generic competition of a drug to treat IBS like in R.I. Laborers Health & Welfare Fund v. Bausch Health Cos. Inc. (D.R.I. Sept. 22, 2023))
Value Drug Co. v. Bausch Health Cos. Inc. (D.R.I. Oct. 23, 2025) (same)
Gourmet Crab Inc. v. D&D Seafood Corp. (S.D. Fl. Oct. 22, 2025) (alleging conspiracy to fix the prices paid to Florida fishermen for stone crab claws and spiny lobsters like in Paradise Tails Inc. v. D & D Seafood Corp. (S.D. Fl. Oct. 6, 2025))
Class Actions and Other Settlements
Shields v. Fed’n Internationale de Natation (N.D. Cal. Oct. 17, 2025): The court granted preliminary approval of a class action settlement resolving claims brought by professional swimmers against World Aquatics (formerly FINA) over its alleged restrictions on independent swimming competitions. The settlement establishes three classes—an injunctive relief class and two damages subclasses for 2018 and 2019 ISL events—and provides $4.63 million in total damages payments plus broad injunctive relief prohibiting World Aquatics from penalizing or restricting swimmers or federations for participating in non-sanctioned events. The court found the agreement fair, reasonable, and adequate following six years of litigation and appointed Winston & Strawn LLP as class counsel and Verita Global LLC as settlement administrator, with a final approval hearing set for February 26, 2026.
Brown v. JBS USA Food Co. (D. Colo. Oct. 16, 2025): In this class action case alleging Section 1 of the Sherman Act claims against multiple meat processors for suppressing employee wages at meat-processing plants through information exchanges, the court granted preliminary approval of settlements with Agri Beef, Washington Beef, and Indiana Packers. The settlements establish two funds—$1.4 million from the Agri Beef/Washington Beef and $1.1 million from Indiana Packers—and require the settling companies to provide structured compensation data, contracts, and limited cooperation in discovery. The court certified a settlement class of all employees of defendant processors from 2000 to 2024, appointed Cohen Milstein, Hagens Berman, and Handley Farah & Anderson as interim lead counsel, approved notice to issue November 12, 2025, and stayed proceedings against the settling defendants pending a later fairness hearing.
*** *** ***
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