Last Week in Antitrust Litigation (#034)
- Kressin Powers
- Nov 9, 2025
- 4 min read
Week of November 3, 2025
Top Takeaways
Pharma Faces New Front in the GLP-1 Wars: Pfizer’s suit to block Novo Nordisk’s $6.5 billion Metsera acquisition underscores rising private-party challenges to transactions viewed as stealth mergers aimed at eliminating future drug competition.
Courts Keep Pressure on Dominant Platforms: The PayPal ruling trimmed but sustained parts of merchants’ antitrust claims, while 2311 Racing v. NASCAR heads to trial on monopsony theories—reinforcing that platform and league conduct remain high-risk zones.
Classic Cartels and Supply Refusals Resurface: New complaints over price-fixing in eggs and exclusionary supply cutoffs in generic drugs highlight continuing enforcement focus on traditional coordination and foreclosure tactics alongside cutting-edge digital cases.
New Cases Filed
Rudnitsky v. International Checkers Ass’n of N. Am. Inc. (S.D. Fl. Nov. 2, 2025): Plaintiff—a five-time U.S. Champion and two-time World Veteran Champion in checkers—filed suit against the International Checkers Association of North America (“ICAONA”) and its executive director alleging, among other things, anticompetitive conduct in the market for organization, governance, and sanctioning of Word Draughts Federation-recognized international draughts competitions in violation of the Sherman Act . The complaint alleges ICAONA unlawfully tied access to FMJD-sanctioned tournaments on ICAONA membership and payment of dues, suppressed National Draughts Federation of the USA (which plaintiff co-founded) as a rival promotor, and disqualified plaintiff on false grounds.
Pfizer Inc. v. Novo Nordisk A/S (D. Del. Nov. 3, 2025): Pfizer filed a complaint seeking to block Novo Nordisk’s proposed $6.5 billion acquisition of Metsera Inc., alleging the deal is a sham designed to neutralize Metsera’s emerging GLP-1 drug competition and sabotage Pfizer’s own pending acquisition of Metsera. The complaint asserts Novo Nordisk—already controlling roughly 50% of the U.S. GLP-1 market with Ozempic and Wegovy—structured the transaction to evade antitrust review by paying Metsera’s investors upfront while delaying regulatory scrutiny, effectively gaining de facto control to stall Metsera’s clinical programs.
KVK Tech, Inc. v. Mallinckrodt LLC (E.D. Pa. Nov. 5, 2025): KVK Tech filed suit against Mallinckrodt and its subsidiary SpecGX alleging, among other things, a Sherman Act Section 2 claim for refusing to supply KVK with Oxycodone and Acetaminophen active pharmaceutical ingredients essential to its generic pain medications. The complaint claims that after nearly a decade of profitable dealings, Mallinckrodt abruptly halted shipments under binding 2024 purchase orders—citing a sham “compliance review”—to cripple KVK’s ability to compete in the markets for hydrocodone- and oxycodone-based tablets, where Mallinckrodt allegedly holds over 60% market share. KVK asserts the refusal was timed to coincide with both companies’ competing bids for a $29 million federal drug supply contract and was intended to maintain Mallinckrodt’s dominance, restrict supply, raise prices, and exclude rivals.
King Kullen Grocery Co. v. Cal-Maine Foods, Inc. (S.D. Ind. Nov. 6, 2025): King Kullen filed a class action complaint alleging that the nation’s five largest egg producers—Cal-Maine, Rose Acre, Versova, Hillandale, and Daybreak—conspired with Urner Barry Publications, Egg Clearinghouse, and United Egg Producers to fix, raise, and stabilize U.S. conventional egg prices in violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act. The complaint claims defendants coordinated to submit inflated price data to Urner Barry, whose widely used benchmark indices, amplified by spot-market manipulation through Egg Clearinghouse, dictated wholesale and retail pricing nationwide. Plaintiff alleges that producers used avian flu outbreaks as a pretext for record price hikes, despite stable input costs and supply recoveries, and that DOJ and the New York Attorney General are actively investigating the same conduct.
The follow-on cases that were filed are:
Newstead Fire Co. v. Oshkosh Corp. (E.D. Wis. Oct. 31, 2025) (alleging defendants conspired to inflate the price of fire trucks like in City of La Crosse v. Oshkosh Corp. (E.D. Wis. Aug. 20, 2025))
City of Onalaska v. Oshkosh Corp. (E.D. Wis. Nov. 4, 2025) (same)
Stedman v. NCAA (S.D. Fl. Nov. 4, 2025) (alleging NCAA’s eligibility rules are anticompetitive like in Elad v. NCAA (D.N.J. Mar. 20, 2025))
Johnson v. NCAA (S.D. Ohio Nov. 5, 2025) (same)
Wild Card, Inc. v. Panini Am., Inc. (E.D. Tex. Nov. 6, 2025) (alleging conspiracy resulting in inflated prices for sports trading cards like in Scaturo v. Fanatics, Inc. (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 17, 2025))
Dispositive Orders and Verdicts
2311 Racing LLC v. Nat'l Ass'n for Stock Car Auto Racing (W.D.N.C. Sept. 3, 2025): In this case asserting, among other things, a competing Sherman Act claims in the premier stock car racing industry, the court granted plaintiffs’ summary judgment motion while denying defendants’ summary judgment motion. The court held that (a) NASCAR’s counterclaim judicially admitted the relevant market as the U.S. market for premier stock car racing team services as asserted by plaintiffs, (b) NASCAR possessed monopsony power with a 100% market share and high barriers to entry, and (c) triable issues remained on defendants’ arguments as to the issues of damages, statute of limitations, and standing, allowing the case to proceed to trial.
Sabol v. Paypal Holdings, Inc. (N.D. Cal. Nov. 5, 2025): In this case alleging that PayPal’s anti-steering rules for online merchants violated, among others, Section 1 of the Sherman Act and the Cartwright Act, the court granted in part PayPal’s motion to dismiss with leave to amend. The court held that (a) plaintiffs plausibly alleged an e-commerce retail market but failed to plead that PayPal possessed market power or suffered a non-speculative, direct antitrust injury, (b) both the “discount” and “pricing” standing theories remained deficient, and (c) all state antitrust claims were dismissed without prejudice for lack of CAFA jurisdiction.
*** *** ***
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