Last Week in Antitrust Litigation (#043)

Week of January 5, 2026

Top Takeaways

1. Healthcare Consolidation Under Fire Again: A sweeping new class action accuses Cigna, Express Scripts, and their affiliates of monopolizing the specialty pharmacy market—illustrating continued private enforcement pressure on vertically integrated PBM–pharmacy structures.

2. Courts Reinforce Pleading Precision: Rulings in PMM Holdings and Cinemacloudwords show that courts expect plaintiffs to allege concrete jurisdictional facts, clear market definitions, and specific exclusionary conduct—not broad accusations of “anticompetitive behavior.”

3. NCAA Agrees to Landmark $303 Million Settlement: The Ray settlement resolves claims that “volunteer coach” rules suppressed compensation, marking one of the largest labor settlements in sports history and reinforcing antitrust exposure in college athletics employment practices.

   
   

New Cases Filed

Wolf v. Accredo Health Grp., Inc. (N.D. Ill. Jan. 6, 2026): Patients suffering from chronic and severe conditions filed a class action alleging that Cigna, Evernorth, Express Scripts, and their subsidiary Accredo Health Group conspired to monopolize the U.S. market to provide specialty pharmacy services in violation of, among others, the Sherman Act. The complaint claims Express Scripts, acting as a pharmacy benefit manager, forces millions of insured patients—including those under TRICARE—to obtain high-cost “specialty drugs” exclusively through Accredo, its affiliated pharmacy, thereby eliminating competition, inflating prices, and degrading service quality. Plaintiffs allege Accredo routinely delays or denies life-sustaining medications through inefficient call centers and broken systems, forcing missed doses, hospitalizations, and emergency care while exploiting captive customers.

Dispositive Orders and Verdicts

PMM Holdings, LLC v. William W. Meyer & Sons, Inc. (E.D. Cal. Dec. 30, 2025): In this case alleging that defendants engaged in anti-competitive conduct in the industrial machinery industry, the court granted Meyer’s motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction and granted in part DHG’s motion to dismiss. The court held that Meyer’s California contacts—one sales representative and minimal California sales—were insufficient for either general or specific jurisdiction, dismissing all claims against Meyer with prejudice. As to the “anti-competitive conduct” claim asserted against DHG, plaintiff clarified that it was brought under California’s Unfair Competition Law, which the court dismissed with leave to amend for failing to identify what conduct is unlawful or unfair.

Cinemacloudwords, Inc. v. Comscore, Inc. (C.D. Cal. Jan. 6, 2025): In this case alleging monopolization and unlawful tying in the market for theatrical box office data in violation of, among other things, the Sherman and Clayton Acts, the court granted in part Comscore’s motion to dismiss. As for the Sherman Act claims, the court found that plaintiff adequately alleged a relevant product market, but dismissed them without prejudice for failing to allege concerted action, exclusionary conduct without legitimate justification, or marketwide antitrust injury. The Clayton Act claim was dismissed with prejudice as legally barred as the data at issue were not “commodities.” However, the court allowed Atlas’s claims under the FTC Act (as incorporated through California’s UCL), finding that Atlas plausibly alleged tying and exclusionary conduct that could threaten competition in the theatrical distribution market.

Class Actions Certifications and Settlements

Ray v. NCAA (E.D. Cal. Jan. 6, 2026): In this case alleging the NCAA’s “volunteer coach” bylaw unlawfully barred pay to Division I assistant coaches in violation of the Sherman Act, the court granted preliminary approval of a $303 million nationwide class settlement. The certified class includes roughly 7,700 former volunteer coaches from March 2019 to June 2023, with payments based on sport, school, and tenure, calculated using the lowest paid non-volunteer coach as a benchmark. The settlement equals more than 100% of estimated damages, to be distributed in three $101 million installments. The court found the agreement the product of extensive, arm’s-length negotiations, approved A.B. Data as settlement administrator, and authorized notice to the class. Attorneys may seek up to 30% in fees and $25,000 service awards per representative, subject to further justification at final approval. A fairness hearing was set for May 11, 2026.

***      ***      ***

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.