Last Week in Antitrust Litigation (#044)

Week of January 12, 2026

Top Takeaways

1. Music and Pharma Face New Monopoly Allegations: X Corp. accused major publishers of using mass DMCA takedowns to fix licensing prices, while Strive v. Lilly/Novo Nordisk targets GLP-1 market exclusivity—underscoring growing convergence of antitrust, IP, and digital-platform law.

2. Courts Signal Limits and Liability Across the Board: The Cumulus v. Nielsen injunction highlights continued judicial readiness to curb coercive tying, while Calhoun v. CIF narrows state-action immunity and preserves NIL-related claims against school athletics rules.

3. Generic Drug and Higher-Ed Cases Advance to Trial: Rulings in Connecticut v. Sandoz and Corzo v. Brown University confirm that complex conspiracies—from generic pricing to university aid coordination—will face juries, reinforcing courts’ comfort managing industrywide antitrust evidence.

New Cases Filed

X Corp. v. Nat’l Music Publishers’ Ass’n (N.D. Tex. Jan. 9, 2026): X Corp. filed suit against the National Music Publishers’ Association (“NMPA”) and major U.S. music publishers alleging they conspired to monopolize and fix prices in the market for copyrighted music-composition licenses in violation of, among others, the Sherman and Texas Antitrust Acts. The complaint claims NMPA and its members—including Sony, Universal, Warner Chappell, BMG, and others controlling over 90% of U.S. publishing rights—collectively refused to negotiate individually with X and instead coordinated a campaign of mass DMCA takedown notices to coerce the platform into purchasing industrywide licenses at supracompetitive rates. X alleges this “refusal-to-deal” and “takedown blitz” mirrored prior schemes against Twitch, Roblox, and Peloton, and has forced removal of hundreds of thousands of posts, deplatformed users, and reduced advertising revenue.

Strive Specialties Inc. v. Eli Lilly & Co. (W.D. Tex. Jan. 14, 2026): Strive Specialties sued Eli Lilly and Novo Nordisk alleging they conspired to monopolize the U.S. GLP-1 weight-loss drug market through exclusive-dealing, disparagement, and interference in violation of the Sherman Act. The complaint claims the two drugmakers—whose products Mounjaro, Zepbound, Ozempic, and Wegovy dominate over 90% of GLP-1 sales—used their market power to block compounded GLP-1 alternatives that physicians prescribe for individualized patient needs. Strive alleges Lilly and Novo Nordisk forced telehealth firms into exclusivity contracts prohibiting compounded prescriptions, falsely branded compounded drugs as “unsafe” or “counterfeit,” and pressured payment processors and social-media platforms to restrict compounding pharmacies. These actions allegedly foreclosed patient access to affordable personalized treatments, raised prices, and reduced choice.

The follow-on cases that were filed are:

• Humphreys v. NCAA (C.D. Cal. Jan. 9, 2026) (alleging NCAA’s eligibility rules are anticompetitive like in Elad v. NCAA (D.N.J. Mar. 20, 2025))

• Penske Media Corp. v. Google LLC (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 12, 2026) (alleging Google monopolized the ad server and ad exchange markets like in United States v. Google LLC (E.D. Va. Jan. 24, 2023))

• Atl. Monthly Grp. v. Google LLC (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 13, 2026) (same)

• Advance Publ'ns, Inc. v. Google LLC (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 14, 2026) (same)

• McClatchy Media Co. v. Google LLC (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 14, 2026) (same)

• Vox Media, LLC v. Google LLC (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 14, 2026) (same)

• Lee v. PepsiCo, Inc. (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 14, 2026) (alleging conspiracy that artificially inflated prices of Pepsi products like in Gelbspan v. PepsiCo Inc. (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 15, 2025))

• Davis v. PepsiCo, Inc. (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 15, 2026) (same)

Dispositive Orders and Verdicts

Cumulus Media New Holdings v. Nielsen Co. (US) LLC (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 8, 2026): In this case alleging that Nielsen unlawfully tied its national radio ratings product to local ratings purchases to maintain monopoly power in violation of Section 2 of the Sherman Act, the court granted Cumulus Media’s motion for a preliminary injunction. The court found that Nielsen’s “Network Policy” coercively required vertically integrated broadcasters to buy local ratings data as a condition of obtaining complete national ratings, effectively foreclosing rival Eastlan and raising competitors’ costs. The court held that Cumulus showed a substantial likelihood of success on its anticompetitive tying claim, a strong showing of irreparable harm to both Cumulus and market competition, and that the balance of hardships and public interest favored relief. The injunction bars Nielsen from enforcing the Network Policy and from charging an unreasonably high price for standalone national ratings, requiring rates no higher than those charged to other broadcasters during litigation.

Calhoun v. Cal. Interscholastic Fed'n (N.D. Cal. Jan. 9, 2026): In this putative class action challenging California high-school athletic rules under federal and state antitrust law, the court granted in part California Interscholastic Federation (“CIF”) and its media partners’ motion to dismiss. The court held that CIF is not an arm of the state for Eleventh Amendment purposes but is entitled to state-action antitrust immunity under Parker v. Brown for its amateurism and transfer rules, which were foreseeable results of state law prioritizing education and prohibiting athletic recruitment. However, CIF was not immune from challenge to its bylaw restricting student-athletes from monetizing their name, image, and likeness (“NIL”) when wearing school uniforms, as this exceeded legislative intent. The court dismissed all claims against the media defendants, finding no plausible conspiracy or causation. It also ruled that the alleged NIL market was implausibly defined and that standing existed only for potential NIL-related injuries. The Sherman Act, Cartwright Act, and UCL claims survived solely as to the NIL restriction, with leave granted to amend the complaint.

Connecticut v. Sandoz, Inc. (D. Conn. Jan. 9, 2026): In this case alleging an overarching conspiracy among manufacturers of dermatology generic drugs in violation of antitrust laws, the court denied Mylan’s motion for summary judgment in full and granted in part Aurobindo’s motion. The court held that a reasonable jury could find that both defendants participated in an overarching industrywide conspiracy to fix prices, allocate markets, and rig bids for generic drugs, and also joined specific conspiracies concerning the diabetes drug Pioglitazone HCL/Metformin (Pio Met). As to Mylan, the court found sufficient evidence—including testimony from cooperating witnesses, contemporaneous communications, and adverse inferences from Fifth Amendment invocations—to support findings that (a) Mylan and its competitors adhered to “rules of engagement” not to poach customers or undercut price increases, (b) Mylan conspired with Aurobindo and others to divide customers and maintain supracompetitive prices for Pio Met, and (c) Mylan colluded with Sandoz and Perrigo to follow coordinated price increases for Bromocriptine and Phenytoin. As to Aurobindo, the court held that testimony and call records showed triable issues that it joined per se unlawful price-fixing and market-allocation agreements with Mylan on Pio Met and with Sandoz on Cefpodoxime Proxetil (Cefpo), both reflecting the same “fair-share” norms underpinning the overarching conspiracy. Summary judgment was granted only as to two injectable antibiotics (Oxacillin Sodium and Nafcillin Sodium), which Aurobindo never sold.

Corzo v. Brown Univ. (N.D. Ill. Jan. 12, 2026): In this class action alleging that universities conspired to suppress institutional financial aid, the court denied cross-motions for summary judgment. The court held that a jury could find the defendant universities—members of the “568 Presidents Group”—agreed to adopt and enforce a common “Consensus Methodology” for calculating need-based aid that served to suppress competitive bidding for students. It ruled that the agreement could not be condemned per se but was subject to rule-of-reason analysis, under which plaintiffs’ expert evidence of supracompetitive tuition, market power among twenty-two top-ranked private universities, and barriers to entry created triable issues of anticompetitive effect and injury. The court rejected the universities’ defenses that the 568 Exemption immunized their conduct and that claims before 2018 were time-barred, finding disputes of fact on need-blind admissions and accrual under the discovery rule, and held that the University of Pennsylvania’s 2020 resignation letter was insufficient to establish withdrawal as a matter of law.

Humphreys v. NCAA (C.D. Cal. Jan. 13, 2026): In this case alleging that NCAA eligibility bylaws unlawfully restrain trade by preventing NAIA transfer athletes from competing and earning NIL compensation, the court denied plaintiff’s ex parte application for a temporary restraining order. The court held that plaintiff failed to show he was without fault in creating the urgency, noting he waited nearly a month after the NCAA’s December 19, 2025 denial of his eligibility appeal before seeking emergency relief. Finding that such extraordinary measures were “rarely justified” and that regular notice procedures were appropriate, the court denied the TRO but converted the request into a motion for preliminary injunction and set a hearing for February 6, 2026.

In re Amitiza Antitrust Litig. (D. Mass. Jan. 14, 2026): In this MDL alleging Takeda delayed generic entry of Amitiza through an agreement with Par Pharmaceutical, the court denied Takeda’s motion for summary judgment and granted summary judgment for retailer plaintiffs CVS, Walgreens, Kroger, Albertsons, and H-E-B on the validity of their wholesaler claim assignments. The court held that the assignments from McKesson, Cardinal, and AmerisourceBergen were supported by consideration because they were executed within ongoing, multi-billion-dollar wholesaler supply relationships and expressly stated mutual covenants and other consideration. The court found it unnecessary to decide whether federal common law or state law governed, though it agreed with the Third Circuit’s view that antitrust claim assignments need not be supported by consideration under federal law. Finally, it ruled that CVS had standing because its pre-complaint assignment from Cardinal Health was valid, even though its later McKesson assignment post-dated the complaint.

***      ***      ***

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.