Last Week in Antitrust Litigation (#050)

Week of February 23, 2026

Top Takeaways

1. Brand and Contract Strategies Face Antitrust Challenges: Lawsuits against UGG owner Deckers and OhioHealth allege companies used litigation and restrictive contracts to block lower-cost rivals, highlighting risks in aggressive IP enforcement and network design.

2. Sports Industry Litigation Expands: Consumers sued the UFC over pay-per-view pricing, and a court temporarily blocked an NCAA eligibility rule—showing that sports governance remains a hotbed for antitrust claims.

3. Courts Focus on Real Competitive Harm: Judges dismissed claims that lacked clear evidence of market foreclosure but allowed credible exclusive-dealing allegations to move forward, emphasizing proof of competition-wide impact.

New Cases Filed

Last Brand, Inc. v. Deckers Outdoor Corp. (N.D. Cal. Feb. 20, 2026): Last Brand, Inc. sued Deckers Outdoor Corporation alleging Deckers engaged in attempted monopolization in violation of Section 2 of the Sherman Act by systematically filing sham trade dress lawsuits to exclude competition in the U.S. market for sheepskin- and shearling-lined casual footwear. The complaint alleges Deckers, the owner of the UGG® brand, uses template-driven, boilerplate complaints asserting unregistered and allegedly generic product-design trade dress—covering common features such as suede exteriors, shearling linings, rounded toes, and thick soles—to impose litigation costs, force product withdrawals, and deter lower-priced competitors. Plaintiff contends that Deckers continued filing materially identical trade dress claims even after a federal court held two of those asserted designs generic and unprotectable, demonstrating that the purpose of the litigation campaign is to raise rivals’ costs and maintain supracompetitive pricing rather than to vindicate legitimate intellectual property rights.

United States v. OhioHealth Corp. (S.D. Ohio Feb. 20, 2026): The United States and the State of Ohio sued OhioHealth Corporation alleging it unlawfully restrains competition in violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act and Ohio’s Valentine Act by imposing contractual restrictions on commercial insurers that block the offering of lower-cost, budget-conscious health plans. The complaint alleges OhioHealth, the dominant hospital system in the Columbus area, uses its market power to require insurers to include all OhioHealth facilities in their networks and to prohibit plan designs that steer patients toward lower-cost rival hospitals or provide price transparency, thereby insulating OhioHealth from price competition. According to the government, these restrictions prevent the development of narrow networks, tiered networks, centers-of-excellence arrangements, and other cost-saving plan features, resulting in higher premiums, higher out-of-pocket costs, reduced patient choice, and diminished competition on price and quality among hospitals in the Columbus region.

Costantino v. Zuffa LLC (D. Nev. Feb. 26, 2026): Plaintiffs filed a putative class action against Zuffa LLC, TKO Group Holdings, Inc., TKO Operating Company, LLC, and Endeavor Group Holdings, Inc., alleging monopolization and attempted monopolization of the market for pay-per-view-level mixed martial arts events in violation of, among others, the Sherman Act and various state antitrust laws. The complaint alleges that defendants secured and maintained monopsony power over top-ranked fighters through exclusive contracts and retaliatory practices, eliminated or acquired rival promotions, refused cross-promotion, and leveraged that control to dominate the market for premium MMA events distributed via pay-per-view and streaming platforms, resulting in supra-competitive pricing for events and related subscriptions. According to plaintiffs, this conduct foreclosed competition, suppressed rival promotions, and enabled defendants to raise, fix, and maintain inflated prices for pay-per-view events and streaming services carrying UFC content, thereby harming consumers by depriving them of competitive alternatives and lower prices.

The follow-on cases that were filed are:

• Arbit v. PepsiCo, Inc. (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 20, 2026) (alleging conspiracy that artificially inflated prices of Pepsi products like in Gelbspan v. PepsiCo Inc. (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 15, 2025))

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

• Coly v. NCAA (N.D. Ind. Feb. 20, 2026) (same)

• Healthcare Just. Coal., LLC v. Blue Cross Blue Shield Ass'n (N.D. Cal. Feb. 25, 2026) (alleging market allocation and price-fixing in health insurance industry like in CommonSpirit v. Blue Cross (N.D. Ill. Mar. 4, 2025))

• Hunter v. Epiq Sys., Inc. (D.N.J. Feb. 25, 2026) (alleging conspiracy  to inflate class action administration costs and suppress payouts to class members like in Tejon v. Epiq Sys., Inc. (S.D. Fl. May 29, 2025))

• Sovrn Holdings Inc. v. Google LLC (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 25, 2026) (alleging Google monopolized the ad server and ad exchange markets like in United States v. Google LLC (E.D. Va. Jan. 24, 2023))

• Los Angeles Times Commc'ns LLC v. Google LLC (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 25, 2026) (same)

• Utah Med. Ass'n v. MultiPlan, Inc. (N.D. Ill. Feb. 26, 2026) (alleging price-fixing conspiracy amount health insurers and third-party administrators like in In re Multiplan Health Ins. Provider Litig. (N.D. Ill.))

• Pa. Med. Soc'y v. MultiPlan, Inc. (N.D. Ill. Feb. 26, 2026) (same)

Dispositive Orders and Verdicts

Blythe v. NCAA (D. Nev. Feb. 20, 2026): In this case alleging that the NCAA’s Five-Year Rule unlawfully restrains trade in violation of Sherman Act § 1 in the Division I collegiate baseball labor market by barring a former non-DI player from competing at a Division I school, the court granted plaintiff’s motion for a preliminary injunction. The court reasoned that (a) the Five-Year Rule is commercial in nature and operates as a horizontal restraint in a Division I baseball labor market in which the NCAA possesses significant market power, (b) the rule has substantial anticompetitive effects by foreclosing qualified athletes from accessing Division I compensation and opportunities without sufficient procompetitive justification and with less restrictive alternatives available, and (c) the plaintiff demonstrated irreparable harm and that the balance of equities and public interest favored enjoining enforcement pending adjudication.

Fluorofusion Specialty Chems., Inc. v. Chemours Co. FC (E.D.N.C. Feb. 20, 2026): In this case alleging a conspiracy and exclusive dealing arising from Chemours’ and Koura’s alleged conditioning of R-454B refrigerant sales on branding restrictions and tied purchases in the U.S. refrigerant markets, the court granted defendants’ Rule 12(b)(6) motions. The court reasoned that (a) plaintiffs failed to plead antitrust injury because their alleged harm stemmed from unsuccessful contract negotiations and branding restrictions rather than market-wide foreclosure or competition harm, (b) the complaint did not plausibly allege an agreement or conspiracy between vertically related defendants or a dangerous probability of monopolizing the broader refrigerant market, and (c) allegations of tying, exclusive dealing, patent misrepresentation, and refusal to deal were insufficient to show substantial foreclosure or willful maintenance of monopoly power in the R-454B market.

Duraplas, LP v. Diversitech Corp. (N.D. Tex. Feb. 25, 2026): In this case alleging that DiversiTech engaged in exclusionary and coercive conduct to maintain its monopoly in the U.S. market for HVAC/R pads, the court granted in part DiversiTech’s motion to dismiss. As to the antitrust claims, the court found that plaintiff (i) plausibly alleged de facto exclusive dealing arrangements foreclosing a substantial share of the market, (ii) failed to sufficiently allege anticompetitive conduct based on patent enforcement efforts and threats of loss of rebates and access to products, and (iii) sufficiently alleged antitrust injuries flowing from defendants’ alleged anticompetitive conduct.

***      ***      ***

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.