Last Week in Antitrust Litigation (#036)

Week of November 17, 2025

Top Takeaways

1. FTC’s Meta Defeat Reframes Platform Monopoly Theory: A federal court rejected the FTC’s core market-definition in its Meta monopolization case, finding TikTok and YouTube direct competitors—undercutting narrow “social networking” theories that have anchored recent Big Tech challenges.

2. Healthcare and Agriculture See Renewed Private Enforcement: New monopolization and price-fixing suits targeting New Jersey hospitals and California dairy producers highlight persistent antitrust exposure in regulated and cooperative sectors once viewed as insulated from scrutiny.

3. Courts Reward Procedural Precision and Settlement Efficiency: Recent dismissals in Enhanced Games and Mattson reaffirm strict pleading and timeliness standards, while multimillion-dollar settlements in Fragrance and Generic Pharma show class plaintiffs continuing to secure meaningful recoveries.

New Cases Filed

RWJ Barnabas Health, Inc. v. NJMHMC, LLC (D.N.J. Nov. 14, 2025): RWJ Barnabas filed suit accusing Hudson Regional Hospital (“HRH”) and its affiliates of conspiring with CarePoint Health and the CarePoint Litigation Trust to manipulate bankruptcy proceedings and litigation in order to monopolize emergency medical services in Bayonne, New Jersey in violation of, among other things, the Sherman Act. The complaint alleges HRH first conspired with CarePoint’s landlord and later with CarePoint itself to drive the CarePoint hospitals into bankruptcy, acquire Bayonne Medical Center, and then weaponize CarePoint’s assigned claims against RWJ Barnabas to recoup over $270 million in acquisition costs. Barnabas asserts that HRH, which controls and funds the CarePoint Litigation Trust, knowingly directs the Trust to pursue false conspiracy allegations against Barnabas and to seek injunctive relief solely to eliminate competition from Barnabas’s satellite emergency department—the city’s only alternative to HRH’s hospital.

Rockstim Consulting, LLC v. Workrise Techs., LLC (W.D. Tex. Nov. 14, 2025): Rockstim, a Texas oilfield engineering and quality-control firm, sued Workrise Technologies (RigUp), SDS Petroleum Consultants, Precision Petroleum Solutions, SM Energy, and several individuals alleging defendants conspired to destroy its business and steal its proprietary technology in violation of, among others, the Sherman Act and Texas state law. The complaint alleges that SM Energy placed superintendents employed by competitors Workrise and SDS in charge of approving Rockstim’s invoices, intentionally delayed payments, and coerced Rockstim to surrender scheduling control—leading to unpaid receivables and financial distress. SM then told Rockstim’s employees they must join competitor “consulting firms,” prompting nearly all staff to defect to SDS, Workrise, or PPS within 90 days, collapsing Rockstim’s operations.

Custom Courts, Inc. v. Connor Sport Court Int'l, LLC (D. Utah Nov. 17, 2025): Fifteen longtime Sport Court® distributors filed suit against Connor Sport Court International (“CSCI”), its parent Gerflor USA, and newly acquired rival Snap Lock Industries (“SnapSports”), alleging defendants shared proprietary information, have interlocking directorates, and made an acquisition that substantially reduced competition in violation of, among others, the Clayton Act. The complaint claims Gerflor’s 2023 purchase of SnapSports created unlawful coordination between two direct competitors that share executives and pricing data, allowing SnapSports to undercut Sport Court® bids and confuse customers by falsely marketing itself as identical to Sport Court® products. Plaintiffs also allege CSCI retaliated after they jointly formed “Sport Ventures, LLC” to raise concerns—issuing breach notices, demanding proprietary business data, and then terminating seven exclusive distributorships without cause.

Amaral Dairy Farms v. Ahlem (E.D. Cal. Nov. 19, 2025): Several California dairy farms sued a group of rival producers alleging they conspired to maintain and enforce the state’s Quota Implementation Program (“QIP”) as a private price-fixing cartel in violation of the Sherman Act. The complaint claims defendants—quota-holding dairy farmers who control the Producer Review Board—used their dominance to impose multimillion-dollar quota assessments that force non-quota farms to subsidize competitors, block hardship petitions, and prevent termination votes that could end the program. Plaintiffs allege this conduct, unsupervised by any state agency, artificially raises raw Grade A milk prices and drives non-quota farms out of business.

The follow-on cases that were filed are:

• Birchmans Parisian, LLC v. Cal-Maine Foods, Inc. (N.D. Ill. Nov. 14, 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))

• Edlin v. Cal-Maine Foods, Inc. (W.D. Wis. Nov. 14, 2025) (same)

• Habash v. Urner Barry Publ'ns, Inc. (N.D. Ill. Nov. 18, 2025) (same)

• Phil-N-Cindy's Lunch, Inc. v. Cal-Maine Foods, Inc. (N.D. Ill. Nov. 17, 2025) (same)

• City of Philadelphia v. Oshkosh Corp. (E.D. Wis. Nov. 14, 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 Revere v. AIP, LLC (D. Mass. Nov. 19, 2025) (same)

• Tennery v. Angeion Grp. (N.D. Ala. Nov. 17, 2025) (alleging conspiracy  to inflate class action administration costs and suppress payouts to class members like in Tejon v. Epiq Sys., Inc. (S.D. Fl. May 29, 2025))

• LSA Lab, LLC v. MultiPlan, Inc. (N.D. Ill. Nov. 14, 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

Enhanced US LLC v. World Aquatics (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 17, 2025): In this case alleging antitrust violations over World Aquatics’ rule barring athletes affiliated with “enhanced” competitions, the court denied World Anti-Doping Agency’s (“WADA”) jurisdictional challenge but dismissed all of Enhanced’s claims. As to the Sherman Act claims, the court held that (a) WADA’s U.S.-directed efforts to block the “Enhanced Games” supported personal jurisdiction, but (b) Enhanced failed to plausibly allege an agreement because its sole allegations against WADA—public statements—failed to support the existence of an agreement and the challenged by-law applied only to World Aquatics events and did not bind USA Swimming, and (c) the complaint failed to allege any degree of monopoly or monopsony power in the alleged market.

Mattson v. Rosebud Elec. Coop. (D.S.D. Nov. 17, 2025): In this case alleging the defendants engaged in an unlawful conspiracy to suppress wind-based Qualifying Facilities (QFs) in violation of, among others, the Sherman Act, the court granted defendants’ motion to dismiss all claims. As to the antitrust claim, the court held that (a) it was time-barred because the two alleged injuries occurred in 2011 and 2014, (b) a Sherman Act Section 1 theory also failed because it did not allege concerted action (rather only unilateral conduct), and (c) a Section 2 theory failed because the complaint failed to allege monopoly power.

FTC v. Meta Platforms, Inc. (D.D.C. Nov. 18, 2025): In this case alleging monopolization of “personal social networking” services in violation of Section 2 of the Sherman Act, the court entered judgment for Meta following a bench trial. The court held that (a) Facebook and Instagram now compete directly with TikTok and YouTube in the broader social-media market, (b) empirical evidence showed extensive user substitution and cross-competition undermining any distinct PSN market, and (c) Meta’s share—well below monopoly thresholds—did not confer monopoly power, defeating the FTC’s claim that Meta unlawfully maintained a monopoly through its Instagram and WhatsApp acquisitions.

Class Action Certifications and Settlements

In re Fragrance Direct Purchaser Antitrust Litig. (D.N.J. Nov. 17, 2025): In this class action claiming that fragrance manufacturers conspired to fix prices and restrict competition, the court granted preliminary approval of a $26 million class settlement between direct purchaser plaintiffs and International Flavors & Fragrances, Inc. (“IFF”). The certified settlement class includes all U.S. entities that purchased fragrance products directly from defendants or their affiliates between January 1, 2018 and December 31, 2023. Finding the agreement the result of arm’s-length negotiations supervised by mediator Layn Phillips, the court held that it appeared fair, reasonable, and adequate, appointed Huntington National Bank as escrow agent, and stayed proceedings against IFF pending final approval.

In re Generic Pharms. Pricing Antitrust Litig. (E.D. Pa. Nov. 19, 2025): In this class action by direct purchasers alleging price-fixing of generic drugs, the court granted final approval of settlements totaling $58 million between end-payer plaintiffs and defendants Heritage Pharmaceuticals ($10 million) and Apotex Corp. ($48 million). The certified settlement classes include indirect purchasers and third-party payors in most U.S. jurisdictions who reimbursed for covered drugs between 2009 and 2019. Finding the settlements negotiated at arm’s length and fair under Rule 23(e) and the Girsh factors, the court approved pro rata distribution, attorneys’ fees of one-third of the funds, and $808,470 in expenses, holding that the agreements provide meaningful recovery given the complexity, risks, and delay of continued litigation.

***      ***      ***

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.