Last Week in Antitrust Litigation (#033)
- Kressin Powers
- Nov 2, 2025
- 7 min read
Week of October 27, 2025
Top Takeaways
Google Faces Major Preclusion Blow: The In re Google Digital Advertising MDL leveraged DOJ’s Virginia win to lock in liability findings against Google—eliminating key defenses and fast-tracking damages trials across the ad tech ecosystem.
Pharma and Tech Trials Advance: Courts sent the Amitiza, Avadel/Jazz, and Celonis/SAP monopolization cases toward trial, underscoring judicial willingness to test exclusionary conduct theories across life sciences and enterprise software.
Record-Setting Settlements Reinforce Private Enforcement: The $195M Xyrem recovery and new wage-fixing and rental-pricing settlements confirm plaintiffs’ increasing success in translating antitrust exposure into meaningful monetary and structural relief.
New Cases Filed
Detroit Directional Opportunities Master Fund Ltd. v. Selecta Grp. B.V. (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 28, 2025): Several investment funds filed suit against Selecta Group and affiliated entities, along with several institutional investors, alleging a collusive debt restructuring that violated, among others, the Sherman Acts and New York’s Donnelly Act. Plaintiffs—holders of Selecta’s first-lien notes—claim that a group of “Favored Holders,” including Invesco, Man Group, Strategic Value Partners, and Diameter Capital, secretly executed a 2025 restructuring that expropriated the value of other equally ranked creditors. According to the complaint, Selecta and the Favored Holders used a private Dutch foreclosure and exchange offer to transfer Selecta’s equity to a new vehicle they controlled (“Bidco”), forcing non-consenting noteholders to accept subordinated “third-out” debt while granting themselves superior “first-out” instruments and equity. Plaintiffs allege this amounted to a concerted boycott and price-fixing scheme among competing noteholders.
Donguan Aoxun Plastic Prods. Co. v. Guangdong Willing Tech. Corp. (W.D. Wash. Oct. 28, 2025): Plaintiffs—Chinese manufacturer Dongguan Aoxun and Amazon seller MI GAO—filed suit alleging, among other things, Walker Process fraud and sham enforcement of a patent. The complaint alleges defendant failed to disclose known prior art and made misleading characterizations to the PTO to obtain the patent at issue and then filed a bad-faith Amazon Patent Evaluation Express complaint asserting patent infringement.
The follow-on cases that were filed are:
Comprehensive Therapy Servs. v. Claritev Corp. (N.D. Ill. Oct. 23, 2025) (alleging price-fixing conspiracy amount health insurers and third-party administrators like in In re Multiplan Health Ins. Provider Litig. (N.D. Ill.))
SCOR Physical Therapy, Inc. v. Claritev Corp. (N.D. Ill. Oct. 24, 2025) (same)
Gaspar Physical Therapy, PC v. Claritev Corp. (N.D. Ill. Oct. 24, 2025) (same)
Dispositive Orders and Verdicts
Homes With Automation Inc. v. Builder’s FirstSource, Inc. (D. Idaho Oct. 23, 2025): In this case alleging monopolization under Section 2 of the Sherman Act in the national markets of general building supply and building trusses, the court granted Builders FirstSource’s motion to dismiss. The court held that (a) Homes With Automation failed to plausibly define a relevant geographic or product market, (b) the complaint alleged no facts showing Builders FirstSource possessed or exercised monopoly power or engaged in anticompetitive conduct, and (c) the claimed injury—loss of equipment and higher costs after a loan default—did not constitute an antitrust injury; accordingly, the Section 2 claim was dismissed with prejudice.
In re Google Digit. Advert. Antitrust Litig. (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 27, 2025): In this MDL over Google’s digital advertising practices, the court granted partial summary judgment for publisher and advertiser plaintiffs based on issue preclusion from the DOJ’s 2025 win in United States v. Google (E.D. Va.). The court ruled that Google cannot relitigate findings that (a) publisher ad servers and ad exchanges are distinct, worldwide markets; (b) Google possessed monopoly power in both; and (c) Google engaged in anticompetitive conduct—including unlawful tying of DoubleClick for Publishers (DFP) to AdX, “First Look,” “Last Look,” “Dynamic Revenue Share,” and “Unified Pricing Rules.”
Avadel CNS Pharms., LLC v. Jazz Pharms., Inc. (D. Del. Oct. 27, 2025): In this case asserting counterclaims alleging that Jazz Pharmaceuticals unlawfully maintained its market position in the narcolepsy treatment market by improperly listing and refusing to delist a REMS-related patent in the FDA’s Orange Book, the court denied Avadel’s motion for summary judgment. The court held that factual disputes about Jazz’s good-faith intent and regulatory compliance—including testimony from a Jazz executive—precluded summary judgment on Avadel’s exclusionary-conduct motion, leaving the issue for trial.
Celonis SE v. SAP SE (N.D. Cal. Oct. 27, 2025): In this case alleging SAP engaged in various anticompetitive conduct in the U.S. market for process mining software in violation of, among other things, the Sherman Act and California’s antitrust statute, the court granted in part SAP’s motion to dismiss. The court held that (a) Celonis plausibly alleged monopolization of the data access market, attempted monopolization of the process mining market, and predatory pricing, but (b) failed to plead coercion sufficient for a tying claim.
Price v. City of Chicago (N.D. Ill. Oct. 28, 2025): In this case alleging, among other things, monopolization in violation of Section 2 of the Sherman Act based on a City of Chicago ordinance that required rideshare companies to report driver deactivations for public safety reasons, the court granted the City’s motion to dismiss the amended complaint without prejudice. As to the antitrust claim, the court held that the complaint failed to allege sufficient facts regarding market power.
2311 Racing LLC v. Nat'l Ass'n for Stock Car Auto Racing (W.D.N.C. Oct. 28, 2025): In this case asserting, among other things, a counterclaim alleging that two NASCAR Cup Series teams jointly negotiated with competitors to fix terms in the 2025 Charter Agreement in violation of Section 2 of the Sherman Act, the court granted summary judgment for the racing teams on NASCAR’s counterclaim. The court held that (a) the teams’ joint negotiations did not unreasonably restrain trade because NASCAR had realistic opportunities to negotiate individually, and (b) NASCAR failed to show any antitrust injury since higher team payments reflected private loss, not harm to competition.
In re Amitiza Antitrust Litig. (D. Mass. Oct. 29, 2025): In this MDL alleging Takeda delayed generic entry of Amitiza through an agreement with Par Pharmaceutical, the court denied Takeda’s motion for summary judgment and granted Plaintiffs’ motion in part. The court held that (a) triable issues exist as to whether Takeda had market power, (b) triable issues exist as to whether the Settlement Agreement’s 50/50 profit split and declining royalty provisions constituted a reverse payment and implicit “no-AG” restraint, and (c) Plaintiffs presented sufficient evidence of an anticompetitive agreement, causation, and fraudulent concealment to proceed to trial.
In re Vias Debit Card Antitrust Litig. (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 28, 2025): In this case alleging monopolization and restraint of trade in U.S. debit network services, the court granted in part Visa’s motions to dismiss complaints by consumer and merchant plaintiffs. The court held that (a) both sets of plaintiffs plausibly alleged antitrust standing, (b) certain state-law antitrust claims were barred or inadequately pled—including those under Illinois and Arkansas—and (c) federal damages claims were dismissed under Illinois Brick, but injunctive claims survived for both groups.
Class Action Certifications and Settlements
Scharpf v. Gen. Dynamics Corp. (E.D. Va. Oct. 23, 2025): The court granted preliminary approval of a class action settlement with Faststream Recruitment Ltd. in a wage-fixing case alleging suppression of compensation for naval architects and marine engineers. The certified settlement class includes all such employees of defendants (excluding Faststream) in the United States from 2000 through the settlement’s execution date, excluding HR personnel, executives, and government entities. The court appointed Scharpf as class representative and Hagens Berman, Handley Farah & Anderson, and Cohen Milstein as class counsel, directed counsel to file a notice plan before final approval, and stayed proceedings against Faststream pending a fairness hearing.
Duffy v. Yardi Sys., Inc. (W.D. Wash. Oct. 23, 2025): In this class action alleging that defendants illegally coordinate rental pricing for multifamily housing by using Yardi’s RENTmaximizer and Revenue IQ software to in violation of federal antitrust law, the court granted preliminary approval of a settlement between plaintiffs and FPI Management, Inc. The certified settlement class includes all U.S. renters who leased units from landlords using Yardi’s pricing tools from September 8, 2019 through the date of the order. The court appointed Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP as lead counsel, found the agreement fair, reasonable, and adequate, deferred approval of notice and allocation plans, and stayed the litigation against FPI pending a final fairness hearing.
In re Xyrem (Sodium Oxybate) Antitrust Litig. (N.D. Cal. Oct. 27, 2025): In this case alleging that Jazz Pharmaceuticals and Hikma entities violated, among others, federal and state antitrust laws by delaying generic competition for Xyrem, the court granted final approval of $195 million in settlements with Jazz Pharmaceuticals and Hikma. The certified settlement class includes third-party payors in 35 states and territories that reimbursed Xyrem purchases between 2017 and 2025. Finding the agreements fair, reasonable, and adequate, the court noted the recovery equals 46% of estimated damages—one of the largest end-payor recoveries in two decades—and that no class member objected or opted out, dismissing the action with prejudice.
*** *** ***
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