Last Week in Antitrust Litigation (#049)
- Kressin Powers
- Feb 23
- 5 min read
Week of February 17, 2026
Top Takeaways
Group Boycott and Association Liability Reemerge: Terrazzo USA v. NTMA advances classic Section 1 theories targeting coordinated refusals to deal enforced through trade-association membership criteria and material supply controls.
Selective Survival of Tying and Exclusive-Dealing Claims: In United States v. Live Nation, the court narrowed market definitions but allowed artist-facing tying and venue-facing ticketing foreclosure theories to proceed, reflecting granular judicial analysis of market power and competitive effects.
Doctrinal Guardrails Shape Litigation Outcomes: Decisions in Perez, Sandoz v. Amgen, and Cox v. CoinMarketCap underscore continued reliance on antitrust standing doctrine, compulsory counterclaim rules, and rigorous market-definition pleading at the Rule 12 stage.
New Cases Filed
Terrazzo USA & Assocs., Inc. v. Nat'l Terrazzo & Mosaic Ass'n (W.D. Tex. Feb. 18, 2026): Terrazzo USA, a minority- and woman-owned terrazzo installation contractor, sued the National Terrazzo and Mosaic Association (“NTMA”), several NTMA member contractors, and Sherwin-Williams alleging they conspired to exclude it from the market for commercial terrazzo installation in violation of the Sherman Act and Texas law. The complaint alleges NTMA—described as the sole national terrazzo trade association—uses subjective membership criteria, member-only bid specifications, and coordinated refusals to sell proprietary terrazzo materials to non-members to enforce a group boycott against Terrazzo USA and other non-NTMA contractors. Terrazzo USA claims it has repeatedly been denied NTMA membership, lost bid awards despite being the low bidder, and been blocked from purchasing required epoxy and proprietary mixes, resulting in over $1 million in damages and reduced competition in the market.
The follow-on cases that were filed are:
Kretschmer v. Curb Mobility LLC (N.D. Cal. Feb. 13, 2026) (refiling case originally filed in the S.D.N.Y. alleging defendants conspired to fix ride-hail prices in the N.D. Cal.)
Med. & Chirurgical Fac. v. MultiPlan, Inc. (N.D. Ill. Feb. 13, 2026) (alleging price-fixing conspiracy amount health insurers and third-party administrators like in In re Multiplan Health Ins. Provider Litig. (N.D. Ill.))
Fargo Stopping Ctr. LLC v. PepsiCo, Inc. (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 16, 2026) (alleging conspiracy that artificially inflated prices of Pepsi products like in Gelbspan v. PepsiCo Inc. (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 15, 2025))
Springhill Hosps., Inc. v. Blue Cross & Blue Shield Ass'n (N.D. Ala. Feb. 12, 2026) (alleging market allocation and price-fixing in health insurance industry like in CommonSpirit v. Blue Cross (N.D. Ill. Mar. 4, 2025))
City of Milwaukee v. Oshkosh Corp. (E.D. Wis. Feb. 18, 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
Perez v. Sw. Reporting & Video Serv., Inc. (W.D. Tex. Feb. 11, 2026): In this case alleging a group boycott in violation of Sherman Act § 1 and the Texas Antitrust Act within the market for court reporting and deposition transcription services, the court granted defendants’ motion to dismiss. The court reasoned that (a) the plaintiff, suing in his individual capacity, failed to allege an antitrust injury because his claimed lost income was derivative of harms to his dismissed companies rather than separate and distinct injury to himself, (b) the complaint did not plausibly allege harm to competition or consumers as required to establish injury of the type the antitrust laws were intended to prevent, and (c) absent antitrust standing the court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction and therefore declined to reach the merits or exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims.
Sandoz Inc. v. Amgen Inc. (E.D. Va. Feb. 17, 2026): In this case alleging defendants unlawfully extended and maintained its monopoly over the biologic drug Enbrel, the court granted defendants’ Rule 12(b)(6) motion with prejudice. The court reasoned that (a) Sandoz’s antitrust claim arose from the same transaction or occurrence as the prior Amgen v. Sandoz patent litigation and was therefore a compulsory counterclaim under Rule 13(a), (b) the prior patent case resulted in a final judgment involving the same parties, operative facts, and evidence such that res judicata principles and the logical-relationship test were satisfied, and (c) the Mercoid exception did not apply because the claim challenged the validity and acquisition of the patents rather than distinct patent misuse, thereby precluding relitigation of the monopolization theory.
Cox v. CoinMarketCap OpCo LLC (D. Ariz. Feb. 17, 2026): In this case alleging monopolization and attempted monopolization in the market for cryptocurrency ranking and information services based on CoinMarketCap’s alleged suppression of HEX’s market-cap ranking to protect affiliated exchange interests, the granted defendants’ Rule 12(b)(6) motions without prejudice. As to the Sherman Act claim, the court reasoned that (a) the complaint failed to plausibly allege that CMC maintained monopoly power through anticompetitive conduct directed at rivals in the relevant ranking-services market, as manipulating a single cryptocurrency’s ranking did not impair competing ranking services, (b) plaintiff did not plead an antitrust injury in that market because his alleged losses occurred from trading HEX on third-party exchanges rather than from competition being restrained in the ranking-services market, and (c) as to BAM, the complaint lacked specific allegations tying it to monopolistic conduct in the defined market.
United States v. Live Nation Ent., Inc. (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 18, 2026): In this case alleging that Sherman Act claims against Live Nation and Ticketmaster based on their alleged conditioning the rental of its large amphitheaters on the purchase of its concert-promotion services, the court granted in Live Nation’s motion for summary judgment, allowing the artist-facing amphitheater tying claims and the venue-facing primary ticketing monopolization and exclusive-dealing claims to proceed to trial. The court reasoned that (a) the government failed to establish viable markets for artist-facing promotion at major concert venues and for fan-facing primary ticketing, including excluding portions of the government’s expert hypothetical monopolist analysis under Daubert, (b) genuine disputes of material fact existed as to market definition, monopoly power, and anticompetitive effects in the large amphitheater and venue-facing primary ticketing markets based on evidence of substantial foreclosure, long-term exclusivity, and alleged coercive threats, and (c) downstream ticket purchasers plausibly suffered antitrust injury under established standing principles because alleged foreclosure in venue-facing ticketing markets could foreseeably harm fans through higher fees or reduced quality.
Class Action Certifications and Settlements
Batton v. Nat’l Ass’n of Realtors (N.D. Ill. Feb. 13, 2026): In this case alleging that real estate brokerages conspired to inflate residential real estate commissions through MLS rules, the court preliminarily approved a class settlement with Keller Williams. The preliminarily certified settlement class includes all persons nationwide who purchased residential real estate listed on any U.S. MLS during the applicable state statutory periods through the date of class notice. The court found Rule 23(a) and (b)(3) requirements satisfied for settlement purposes, appointed class representatives and class counsel, and approved a comprehensive notice plan administered by A.B. Data. A fairness hearing is scheduled for July 28, 2026, and class members have 70 days from the notice date to object or opt out, with a claims deadline 133 days after notice.
*** *** ***
If you have any antirust questions or would like more information about any of these matters, please contact one of the following authors:
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.
Comments