Last Week in Antitrust Litigation (#035)

Week of November 10, 2025

Top Takeaways

1. Short-Term Rentals Spark Antitrust Fight: Airbnb is suing Biloxi, claiming city rules and hotel-industry influence unfairly block new entrants—a reminder that local regulations can carry antitrust risk when driven by competitors.

2. Courts Push Back on Weak or Late Claims: Judges dismissed cases over robotic repairs and college eligibility for being too old or speculative, signaling that plaintiffs must act quickly and show real market harm.

3. Settlement Activity Stays Strong: Major settlements in hospital, pork, and concrete cases confirm that companies continue to resolve long-running antitrust disputes through substantial payments and compliance commitments.

New Cases Filed

Airbnb, Inc. v. City of Biloxi (S.D Miss. Nov. 12, 2025): Airbnb and homeowner Patrice Perillo filed suit against the City of Biloxi alleging a conspiracy between the city and the Mississippi Hotel & Lodging Association (“HLA”) to restrict competition from short-term rentals (“STRs”) in violation of federal and Mississippi antitrust laws. The complaint claims the HLA—whose president also serves on the Biloxi City Council—engineered ordinances (Nos. 2292 and 2537) that (a) prohibit STRs in single-family zones, (b) cap STR permits citywide at 75, and (c) require every STR permit application to be shared with the HLA, giving hotel competitors access to applicants’ private data. Plaintiffs allege these measures unreasonably restrain trade by foreclosing new entrants, raising prices for travelers, and reducing consumer choice in Biloxi’s short-term lodging market—where hotels now hold roughly 90% share.

The follow-on cases that were filed are:

• Index Exch. Inc. v. Google LLC (E.D. Va. Nov. 10, 2025) (alleging Google monopolized the ad server and ad exchange markets like in United States v. Google LLC (E.D. Va. Jan. 24, 2023))

• Nineteenseventynine LLC v. Cal-Maine Foods, Inc. (S.D. Ind. Nov. 10, 2025) (alleging conspiracy to fix prices of conventional fresh shell eggs like in King Kullen Grocery Co. v. Cal-Maine Foods, Inc. (S.D. Ind. Nov. 6, 2025))

• Fresenius Med. Care Ventures, LLC v. Claritev Corp. (N.D. Ill. Nov. 10, 2025) (alleging price-fixing conspiracy amount health insurers and third-party administrators like in In re Multiplan Health Ins. Provider Litig. (N.D. Ill.))

Dispositive Orders and Verdicts

Restore Robotics Repair LLC v. Intuitive Surgical, Inc. (N.D. Fl. Nov. 7, 2025): In this case alleging monopolization and unlawful tying in the market for repairs of Intuitive’s da Vinci X/Xi EndoWrist instruments, the court granted Intuitive’s motion to dismiss and denied leave to amend. The court held that (a) Restore Robotics’ claims were time-barred under the four-year statute of limitations, (b) neither the speculative-damages nor continuing-violation exceptions applied because Restore Robotics’ exclusionary injury was fixed by 2020, and (c) any injunctive-relief claims were barred by laches and moot after Intuitive later authorized repairs.

Johnson v. NCAA (S.D. Ohio Nov. 11, 2025): In this case alleging that NCAA eligibility rules unlawfully restrained trade under Section 1 of the Sherman Act, the court denied collegiate basketball player Donovan “Puff” Johnson’s motion for a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction. The court held that (a) NCAA hardship and eligibility rules are commercial in nature but not shown to produce substantial anticompetitive effects, (b) Johnson failed to demonstrate how less restrictive alternatives preserve any procompetitive efficiencies, and (c) alleged injuries—such as lost NIL income or exposure—were speculative and reparable, so injunctive relief was unwarranted on all claims.

Class Actions Certifications and Settlements

Sidibe v. Sutter Health (N.D. Cal. Nov. 6, 2025): In this class action alleging that Sutter Health engaged in anticompetitive conduct that raised healthcare costs for purchasers of inpatient hospital services, the court granted final approval of a settlement. Following adequate notice and a fairness hearing, the court found the settlement fair, reasonable, and in the best interest of the class, approving payment of $75.4 million in attorneys’ fees, $28.19 million in litigation costs, and $105,000 in service awards, all from the settlement fund.

In re Pork Antitrust Litig. (D. Minn. Nov. 7, 2025): In this class action alleging price-fixing in the pork industry, the court granted preliminary approval of a class settlement between consumer indirect purchaser plaintiffs and Tyson. The certified class includes consumers in several “repealer” jurisdictions who indirectly purchased specified raw pork products for personal use between 2014 and 2018. Finding the agreement fair, reasonable, and the result of arm’s-length negotiations, the court deferred formal notice to maximize settlement funds for class distribution and stayed all proceedings against Tyson pending final approval.

Pro Slab, Inc. v. Argos USA, LLC (D.S.C. Nov. 12, 2025): In this class action alleging price-fixing of Ready-Mix Concrete, the court granted final approval of three settlements resolving claims between the plaintiff class and defendants Lafarge North America Inc., Thomas Concrete, Inc. and Thomas Concrete of South Carolina, Inc., and Evans Concrete, LLC. Each settlement covers direct purchasers of ready-mix concrete from defendants’ identified plants between January 1, 2010, and July 31, 2016. The court found all three settlements fair, reasonable, and adequate under Rule 23, confirming that notices by mail and publication satisfied due process and that the agreements resulted from arm’s-length negotiations by experienced counsel. Claims against each settling defendant were dismissed with prejudice, certain opt-outs were noted, and the court retained jurisdiction to supervise the administration and distribution of the settlement funds.

***      ***      ***

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.