Last Week in Antitrust Litigation (#042)

Week of December 29, 2025

Top Takeaways

1. Antitrust Theories Meet Emerging Technologies: A new suit against a 3D-print gun designer applies Sherman Act claims to digital file-sharing, highlighting how courts may confront competition issues in decentralized, IP-heavy markets.

2. Courts Reinforce Limits on Standing and Market Definition: Dismissals in Campbell Family and Subspace Omega reaffirm that plaintiffs must show competitive participation in a defined market and more than single-brand or speculative theories of dominance.

3. Municipal and Platform Conduct Face Differentiated Treatment: While KCD v. City of Independence confirms state-action immunity for local regulation, Fanimal v. Ticketmaster and other follow-ons signal continued scrutiny of entrenched platform markets.

New Cases Filed

ABC IP, LLC v. Hoffman (E.D. Tenn. Dec. 23, 2025): ABC IP and Rare Breed Triggers sued Timothy Hoffman and Hoffman Tactical alleging, among other things, Sherman Act claims arising from Hoffman’s release of 3D-printable “Super Safety” trigger designs for AR-platform firearms. According to the complaint, defendants commit targeted patent infringement against plaintiffs to try to flood the market for forced reset triggers by intentionally posting 3D CAD and STEP files of infringing devices on the internet. Plaintiffs allege that defendants entered into a contract with third parties every time a person/entity downloads an illegal and infringing 3D printing file that restrains competition by reducing the market for plaintiffs’ products.

The follow-on cases that were filed are:

• Emporium Food Store LLC v. PepsiCo, Inc. (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 24, 2025) (alleging conspiracy that artificially inflated prices of Pepsi products like in Gelbspan v. PepsiCo Inc. (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 15, 2025))

• Petretti v. PepsiCo, Inc. (N.D. Cal. Dec. 23, 2025) (same)

• CVS Pharmacy, Inc. v. Bausch Health Cos. (D.R.I. Dec. 23, 2025) (alleging defendants agreed to delay generic competition of a drug to treat IBS like in R.I. Laborers Health & Welfare Fund v. Bausch Health Cos. Inc. (D.R.I. Sept. 22, 2023))

• Ryan v. Cal-Maine Foods, Inc. (W.D. Mo. Dec. 30, 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))

• Fanimal, Inc. v. Ticketmaster LLC (C.D. Cal. Dec. 30, 2025) (alleging unlawful monopolization of the U.S. markets for primary and secondary ticketing services for major concert venue like in United States v. Live Nation Ent. Inc. (S.D.N.Y. May 23, 2024))

Dispositive Orders and Verdicts

A&B Campbell Family LLC v. Williams Partners, L.P. (M.D. Pa. Dec. 22, 2025): In this case alleging antitrust violations, among others, arising from Marcellus Shale gas operations, the court granted Anadarko, Mitsui, and Access’s motions to dismiss with prejudice. As for the antitrust claims, the court held that the lessor plaintiffs lacked antitrust standing under Sections 1 and 2 of the Sherman Act because they were neither consumers nor competitors in the gas market, and failed to plead an unlawful agreement among defendants.

Subspace Omega, LLC v. Amazon Web Servs., Inc. (W.D. Wash. Dec. 22, 2025): In this case alleging Amazon Web Services (“AWS”) monopolized the cloud and network optimization markets, the court granted AWS’s motion to dismiss in part. The court dismissed plaintiff’s five federal and state antitrust claims—holding that it failed to adequately plead a single-brand aftermarket for “low-latency network optimization on AWS,” specific intent to monopolize, or a “dangerous probability” of AWS achieving monopoly power in cloud computing, though it plausibly alleged predatory conduct under a refusal-to-deal theory.

KCD KC Disposal LLC v. City of Independence, Missouri (W.D. Mo. Dec. 23, 2025): In this case alleging, among other things, a claim under Section 1 of the Sherman Act due to the City’s denial of a Certificate of Need to operate as a waste hauler, the court denied plaintiff’s summary judgment motion and granted the City’s motion in part. As to the Sherman Act claim, the court held that the City’s actions were unilateral governmental conduct, not a “hybrid restraint,” and thus did not violate Section 1 of the Sherman Act.

***      ***      ***

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.