Last Week in Antitrust Litigation (#048)

Week of February 9, 2026

Top Takeaways

1. Actavis Framework Continues to Shape Pharma Litigation: The Dexilant ruling reinforces courts’ willingness to infer plausibly anticompetitive reverse payments and potential per se market-allocation theories while limiting exposure to timely overcharge periods.

2. Heightened Judicial Scrutiny of Agreement and Power Allegations: Decisions in Little v. Pacific Seafood and Compass v. Zillow emphasize rigorous application of Twombly standards and caution against inferring conspiracy from conscious parallelism absent evidence of a “meeting of the minds.”

3. Structural Reform in Brokerage Markets Advances: Final approval in Keel signals sustained momentum in nationwide commission-rule litigation, pairing large-scale participation with forward-looking competitive reforms.

New Cases Filed

The follow-on cases that were filed include:

• Ziff Davis, Inc. v. Google LLC (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 6, 2026) (alleging Google monopolized the ad server and ad exchange markets like in United States v. Google LLC (E.D. Va. Jan. 24, 2023))

• Reese v. PepsiCo, Inc. (D. Mass. Feb. 6, 2026) (alleging conspiracy that artificially inflated prices of Pepsi products like in Gelbspan v. PepsiCo Inc. (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 15, 2025))

• Jewat v. PepsiCo, Inc. (W.D. Ark. Feb. 12, 2026) (same)

• Blythe v. NCAA (D. Nev. Feb. 9, 2026) (alleging NCAA’s eligibility rules are anticompetitive like in Elad v. NCAA (D.N.J. Mar. 20, 2025))

• California v. REV Grp. (C.D. Cal. Feb. 12, 2026) (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))

Dispositive Orders and Verdicts

Little v. Pac. Seafood Procurement, LLC (N.D. Cal. Feb. 6, 2026): In this case alleging a price-fixing conspiracy among Dungeness crab buyers in violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act, the court granted Da Yang Seafood’s and Great Ocean Seafood’s motions to dismiss. The court held that (a) allegations that Da Yang exchanged pricing information with other buyers showed, at most, lawful information sharing and conscious parallelism rather than an agreement to fix prices, (b) conflating Da Yang and Great Ocean without specific facts showing joint participation was insufficient, though amendment was permitted.

In re Dexilant (Dexlansoprazole) Antitrust Litig. (N.D. Cal. Feb. 6, 2026): In this case alleging that Takeda and generic manufacturer TWi entered into an unlawful reverse-payment and market-allocation settlement delaying generic Dexilant entry, the court granted in part and denied in part defendants’ motion to dismiss. The court held that (a) plaintiffs plausibly alleged a large and unjustified reverse payment under FTC v. Actavis, (b) plaintiffs plausibly alleged a continuing violation such that overcharge claims within four years of filing are timely but earlier injuries are barred, and (c) plaintiffs sufficiently pleaded antitrust injury and a potentially per se unlawful market-allocation theory, while claims against later acquirers Bora and Upsher were dismissed for failure to allege their knowing participation in the conspiracy.

Compass, Inc. v. Zillow, Inc. (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 6, 2026):  In this case alleging Zillow engaged in anticompetitive conduct in the real estate online search market, the court denied Compass’s motion for a preliminary injunction. The court held that (a) Compass failed to make a clear showing of an agreement with Redfin sufficient for Section 1 liability because the evidence was at most consistent with independent parallel conduct and credible testimony and contemporaneous records rebutted a “meeting of the minds,” and (b) Compass failed to show a clear likelihood of success on its Section 2 claim because the record did not support an inference that Zillow possessed monopoly power in the online home search market given only 50–66% share estimates and evidence of multi-homing, low switching costs, and meaningful competitive entry.

Class Actions and Other Settlements

Keel v. Charles Rutenberg Realty, Inc. (W.D. Mo. Feb. 5, 2026): In this case alleging a conspiracy to fix and raise prices of real estate commissions, the court granted final approval of nationwide class settlements. The settlement class includes all persons who sold a home listed on any U.S. multiple listing service between October 31, 2019, and the date of class notice, with more than 2.6 million claims submitted and only 22 opt-outs and no objections. Finding the settlements fair, reasonable, and adequate under Rule 23(e), the court approved nationwide monetary and practice-change relief, certified the settlement class, enjoined further prosecution of released claims, and directed entry of final judgment as to the settling defendants.

***      ***      ***

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.