Last Week in Antitrust Litigation (#037)

Week of November 24, 2025

Top Takeaways

1. Antitrust Reaches the Ride-Hailing Market: The Kretschmer class action accuses Uber and taxi-app providers of forming a “ride-hailing cartel,” spotlighting growing scrutiny of algorithmic pricing and cross-platform fare alignment.

2. Courts Refine the Boundaries of State and Private Action: The DaveAir v. City of Monroe decision highlights increasing judicial scrutiny of municipal and quasi-governmental conduct, reaffirming that state-action immunity is narrowly construed and that local entities remain exposed when their regulations suppress competition.

3. Courts Draw Sharper Lines on Class Viability and Settlement Relief: The Keurig denial underscores tightening common-injury standards in price cases, while final approvals in Align and Schwab show courts endorsing tailored, compliance-focused settlements.

New Cases Filed

Kretschmer v. Curb Mobility LLC (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 24, 2025): Plaintiff filed a putative class action against Curb Mobility, Creative Mobile Technologies (“CMT”), ARRO, and Flywheel Technologies alleging defendants conspired with Uber to fix ride-hail prices and eliminate competition in violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act. The complaint claims that beginning in 2022, Uber and the defendants agreed to integrate taxi-hailing technology and align fares for UberX and taxi rides across the Uber, Curb, ARRO, and Flywheel apps, creating a “ride-hailing cartel” that eliminated independent pricing authority. These horizontal agreements allegedly raised fares nationwide, reduced consumer choice, reduced driver pay, and deprived consumers of meaningful price competition among digital ride-hailing platforms.

The follow-on cases that were filed are:

• Duarte v. Angeion Grp. LLC (C.D. Cal. Nov. 20, 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))

• L&P Lymphatic & Pelvic Physical Therapy PC v. Multiplan, Inc. (N.D. Ill. Nov. 20, 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

Daveair v. City of Monroe (W.D. La. Nov. 21, 2025): In this case alleging monopolization and conspiracy to restrain trade at Monroe Regional Airport in violation of, among others, the Sherman Act and Louisiana antitrust law, the court granted in part and denied in part defendants’ motions to dismiss. The court held that (a) DaveAir’s antitrust claims were timely under a continuing violation theory, (b) the City of Monroe was not immune under the state-action doctrine because Louisiana law mandates competition among fixed-base operators, (c) Avflight and Avfuel were immune under Noerr-Pennington only for their successful petitioning of Monroe, and (d) the Sherman and Louisiana antitrust claims survived against Monroe and against Avflight/Avfuel for non-petitioning conduct.

Class Actions Certifications and Settlements

In re Keurig Green Mountain Single-Serve Coffee Antitrust Litig. (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 20, 2025): In this case alleging Keurig engaged in monopolization and exclusionary conduct in the portion pack market resulting in supracompetitive prices for K-Cups, the court denied the direct purchaser plaintiffs’ motion to certify a class of K-Cup buyers. Although the plaintiffs satisfied numerosity and commonality, the court held that differences in purchasing practices between individual consumers paying list prices and large corporate purchasers negotiating individual contracts defeated typicality, adequacy, and predominance. The court further found that plaintiffs’ expert model, which used average prices to show class-wide overcharges, could not establish common antitrust injury because it failed to account for negotiated pricing and potential uninjured members. The court also denied certification under Rule 23(b)(2), finding that injunctive relief was not uniformly appropriate since antitrust injury could not be shown on a class-wide basis.

Snow v. Align Tech., Inc. (N.D. Cal. Nov. 21, 2025): In this class action involving allegations that Align restrained competition in the clear aligner market, the court granted final approval of a nationwide class settlement resolving antitrust claims alleging Align Technology conspired with SmileDirectClub. The certified settlement class includes all U.S. consumers who purchased SmileDirectClub aligners for personal use between October 22, 2017 and August 18, 2022. Finding the settlement fair, reasonable, and adequate under Rule 23(e), the court overruled all objections, confirmed Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP as class counsel, and retained jurisdiction over implementation, distribution, and fee awards, with post-distribution accounting due within 21 days of completing class payments.

Corrente v. Charles Schwab Corp. (E.D. Tex. Nov. 24, 2025): In this class action challenging the merger of Charles Schwab and TD Ameritrade under Section 7 of the Clayton Act, the court granted final approval of a settlement. The certified injunctive-relief class includes all U.S. brokerage customers of Schwab or its affiliates, alleging the merger reduced price improvement and competition in retail order flow. Finding the settlement fair, reasonable, and adequate, the court held that the agreement—which establishes a forward-looking antitrust compliance program valued between $128.4 and $174 million annually to Schwab’s retail customers—provides meaningful prospective relief. The court overruled roughly seventy objections concerning standing, notice adequacy, and the lack of monetary relief, confirming that plaintiffs and counsel adequately represented the class and that all Rule 23 requirements were satisfied.

***      ***      ***

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.