Last Week in Antitrust Litigation (#038)

Week of December 1, 2025

Top Takeaways

1. Antitrust Claims Spread Across Industries: Oil refiners, mall landlords, and medical-certification boards are all facing new suits—showing how antitrust challenges are expanding into energy, real estate, and professional services.

2. Courts Keep New Market Theories Alive: Judges allowed claims involving cannabis products, generic drugs, and credit reporting to move forward, signaling that even emerging or highly regulated markets can trigger antitrust exposure.

3. Key Legal Defenses Tighten: Recent decisions stress that issues like immunity, market definition, and injury are fact-driven—making early dismissals harder and highlighting the value of proactive compliance and documentation.

New Cases Filed

Herold v. Chevron Corp. (N.D. Cal. Nov. 26, 2025): California consumers filed a putative class action against Chevron, Valero, PBF Energy, Marathon, and Phillips 66 alleging the five refiners conspired to inflate gasoline prices by falsely reporting higher compliance costs under California’s Low Carbon Fuel Standard (“LCFS”) program in violation of, among others, the Sherman Act and the Cartwright Act. The complaint asserts that starting January 1, 2025, all five refiners simultaneously reported a roughly 7-cent-per-gallon increase in LCFS costs—despite no rise in LCFS credit prices or new regulatory obligations—and embedded those phantom costs into retail gas prices, generating hundreds of millions in overcharges. Plaintiffs allege the coordinated reporting and pricing behavior amounted to unlawful price-fixing and deceptive business practices that misled regulators and consumers and undermined California’s climate-policy transparency.

Oak Land & Dev., LLC v. Simon Prop. Grp. (W.D. Ok. Dec. 2, 2025): Developers of the new OAK lifestyle center in Oklahoma City sued Simon Property Group, its Penn Square affiliate, and CEO David Simon alleging they used monopoly power to block retailers from leasing at OAK in violation of, among others, the Sherman Act and the Oklahoma Antitrust Reform Act. The complaint claims Simon leveraged its national mall portfolio to coerce brands—including RH, Alo, North Italia, and other national retailers—into leasing or remaining at Penn Square Mall and abandoning OAK, conditioning favorable leases elsewhere on avoiding OAK or refusing to renew existing leases if tenants defected. Plaintiffs assert this conduct constitutes unlawful tying and monopolization that deprived OAK of key anchor tenants, delayed development, and maintained Simon’s dominance over the Oklahoma City retail leasing market.

Am. Osteopathic Ass'n v. Am. Bd. of Internal Med. (N.D. Ill. Dec. 3, 2025): The American Osteopathic Association, American College of Osteopathic Internists, and several osteopathic physicians filed a class action against the American Board of Internal Medicine (“ABIM”) alleging a conspiracy, unlawful tying, and a group boycott in the markets for program director roles in internal medicine residency or fellowship programs and physician board certification in internal medicine in violation of the Sherman Act. The complaint claims ABIM maintains monopoly power over internal medicine certification by refusing to accept attestations from osteopathic-certified program directors, thereby excluding board certified physicians from serving as directors of medical residency and fellowship programs. Plaintiffs allege this policy—unique among all specialty boards—forces hospitals to hire ABIM diplomates, compels osteopathic physicians to obtain duplicative ABIM credentials, and suppresses competition in both the certification and program-director labor markets.

Moir Watershed Servs., LLC v. City of Dallas (N.D. Tex. Dec. 4, 2025): Moir Watershed sued the City of Dallas, Good Earth Corporation, and several city employees alleging bid-rigging in violation of, among others, the Sherman and Clayton Acts. The complaint claims Dallas officials steered public works and flood-control contracts to Good Earth despite its lack of required equipment, poor past performance, and failure to meet bid standards, while excluding more qualified competitors. Moir alleges the city repeatedly altered specifications to favor Good Earth and ignored its substandard work, creating an unlawful anticompetitive environment.

The follow-on cases that were filed are:

• City of Chelsea v. Fire Apparatus Mfrs.' Ass'n (D. Mass. Dec. 2, 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))

• AT&T Servs., Inc. v. Actavis Holdco U.S., Inc. (E.D. Pa. Dec. 2, 2025) (alleging conspiracy to fix and maintain prices of generic drugs like in In re Generic Pharms. Pricing Antitrust Litig. (E.D. Pa.))

• Bentzen v. Anesthesia Assocs., PA (E.D. Tex. Dec. 3, 2025) (alleging defendants monopolized the market for certified registered nurse anesthetists like in EmergencHealth, PLLC v. Anesthesia Assocs., PA (E.D. Tex. Aug. 10, 2025))

• Mayo Clinic v. Claritev Corp. (N.D. Ill. Dec. 4, 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

Mychoice, LLC v. Taiv, Inc. (E.D. Tex. Nov. 28, 2025): In this case asserting, among others, attempted monopolization counterclaims under the Walker Process and sham litigation theories, the magistrate judge recommended denying plaintiffs’ motions to dismiss and for summary judgment. The magistrate held that (a) whether the Noerr-Pennington doctrine applies and the challenge to market definition are fact-intensive inquiries requiring denial of the motion to dismiss based on those grounds, (b) the pleading standard for a Walker Process claim is not higher than an inequitable conduct claim, (c) because the inequitable conduct counterclaim should survive the motion to dismiss, so too should the sham litigation counterclaim, and (d) genuine issues remained as to whether MyChoice’s patent enforcement and litigation conduct could support Walker Process or sham litigation counterclaims, including proof of antitrust injury based on litigation expenses.

Earths Healing, Inc. v. Shenzhen Smoore Tech. Co. (N.D. Cal. Dec. 2, 2025): In this case alleging unlawful price-fixing and exclusive dealing in the U.S. wholesale market for unfilled cannabis vapes in violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act, the court granted in part and denied in part defendants’ motions to dismiss. The court held that (a) plaintiffs failed to plead a horizontal agreement among distributors sufficient for a per se claim but adequately alleged a vertical conspiracy between Smoore and its distributors under the rule of reason, (b) the market for unfilled vapes is a legitimate market supporting federal standing despite cannabis’s illegality that satisfy the interstate commerce requirement, (c) the statute of limitations and tolling issues could not be resolved on the pleadings, and (d) one suspended corporate plaintiff, Summit, lacked capacity to sue but could seek reinstatement later.

Connecticut v. Sandoz, Inc. (D. Conn. Dec. 3, 2025): In this case alleging an overarching conspiracy among manufacturers of dermatology generic drugs in violation of antitrust laws, the court denied defendants’ motion for summary judgment. The court held that (a) cooperating witnesses, communications records, and expert analysis created triable issues that defendants adhered to shared “rules of engagement” — following each other’s price increases and avoiding customer “poaching” to maintain a “fair-share” market equilibrium — and (b) the evidence supported a reasonable inference of a single, overarching per se illegal conspiracy under Section 1 of the Sherman Act, rather than merely isolated bilateral agreements, thus requiring the case to proceed to trial.

Adams v. Experian Information Sols., Inc. (E.D. Cal. Dec. 3, 2025): In this case alleging that Experian and other credit reporting agencies conspired to suppress reporting of medical debts in violation of, among others, the Sherman Act and California’s Cartwright Act, the court granted in part and denied in part defendants’ motion to dismiss. The court held that (a) the medical-provider plaintiffs lacked antitrust standing because the collection agency was not an agent of the medical-provider plaintiffs and they were not market participants and failed to show that their injuries flowed directly from the alleged restraint, but (b) the collection-agency plaintiff plausibly alleged antitrust standing as a direct participant harmed by the alleged reporting conspiracy, allowing its Sherman Act claim to proceed.

***      ***      ***

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.