Last Week in Antitrust Litigation (#052)

Week of March 9, 2026

Top Takeaways

1. Commodity Market Coordination Allegations Expand: Stevens v. Nutrien advances Section 1 claims targeting alleged information exchanges and parallel pricing among dominant fertilizer producers in a highly concentrated global market.

2. Platform Intermediation and Data Standards as Competitive Bottlenecks: DTN v. Gravitate reflects increasing reliance on antitrust theories addressing exclusion through control of proprietary technical specifications and supply-chain data flows.

3. Courts Maintain Rigorous Market and Standing Requirements: Decisions in DeYoung and Price v. City of Chicago reinforce that plaintiffs must show participation in a properly defined market and plausible competition-wide injury to survive dismissal.

New Cases Filed

Stevens v. Nutrien AG Sols. (N.D. Ill. Mar. 7, 2026): Plaintiffs, doing business as Fire Creek Farms, filed a putative class action against Nutrien Ag , CF Industries, Koch Agronomic, Yara, Mosaic Company, and Canpotex alleging that defendants conspired to fix, raise, and maintain the prices of nitrogen, phosphate, and potash fertilizers in violation of, among others, the Sherman Act. The complaint alleges that beginning no later than January 1, 2021, defendants coordinated pricing and exchanged competitively sensitive information through meetings and industry trade associations while taking advantage of a highly concentrated fertilizer market dominated by a small number of major producers. According to plaintiffs, the alleged conspiracy artificially inflated fertilizer prices across the United States, causing direct purchasers such as farmers and agricultural businesses to pay supracompetitive prices for essential crop nutrients.

DTN, LLC v. Gravitate Energy LLC (N.D. Tex. Mar. 10, 2026): DTN filed suit against Gravitate Energy and capSpire alleging that defendants conspired to misappropriate DTN’s proprietary invoice-translation specification and to restructure invoice data flows in the refined fuels supply chain in violation of, among others, the Sherman Act. The complaint alleges that defendants copied DTN’s confidential invoice specification, distributed a near-verbatim version labeled as their own “Supplier Invoice Requirement Sheet,” and used it to solicit suppliers and customers to route invoice data directly to Gravitate in order to bypass DTN’s translation and messaging services. According to DTN, defendants coordinated this conduct with capSpire leveraging its consulting relationships with energy-sector customers to pressure them into adopting Gravitate’s competing services, thereby diverting data flows, foreclosing DTN’s service channel, and harming competition in the market for fuel-industry invoice translation and messaging services.

The follow-on cases that were filed are:

• BlueWater Emergency Partners, LLC v. Multiplan, Inc. (N.D. Ill. Mar. 6, 2026) (alleging price-fixing conspiracy amount health insurers and third-party administrators like in In re Multiplan Health Ins. Provider Litig. (N.D. Ill.))

• Carolina Neurosurgery & Orthopedics, Inc. v. Multiplan, Inc. (N.D. Ill. Mar. 6, 2026) (same)

• Fl. Spine & Orthopedics, Inc. v. Multiplan, Inc. (N.D. Ill. Mar. 6, 2026) (same)

• Columna, Inc. v. Multiplan, Inc. (N.D. Ill. Mar. 6, 2026) (same)

• Am. Ass'n for Disability Just. v. Epic Sys. Corp. (W.D. Tex. Mar. 9, 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))

• Eaton v. PepsiCo, Inc. (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 12, 2026) (alleging conspiracy that artificially inflated prices of Pepsi products like in Gelbspan v. PepsiCo Inc. (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 15, 2025))

Dispositive Orders and Verdicts

DeYoung v. Greater Baton Rouge Ass'n of Realtors (M.D. La. Mar. 6, 2026): In this case alleging unlawful tying and monopolization in violation of Sherman Act and the Clayton Act arising from rules requiring real estate professionals to join REALTOR® associations to access Multiple Listing Service data, the magistrate judge recommended that the antitrust claims be dismissed with prejudice. The court reasoned that (a) plaintiffs failed to plead antitrust standing and a relevant product and geographic market because they alleged only personal injuries from membership requirements without facts showing harm to competition or consumers, (b) the Clayton Act claim failed as a matter of law because the alleged tying involved services rather than commodities, and (c) the monopolization claim failed because plaintiffs were not competitors in the alleged market and therefore could not plausibly allege monopoly power or exclusion of rivals.

Price v. City of Chicago (N.D. Ill. Oct. 28, 2025): In this case alleging, among other things, monopolization in violation of Section 2 of the Sherman Act based on a City of Chicago ordinance that required rideshare companies to report driver deactivations for public safety reasons, the court granted Chicago’s motion to dismiss. As to the antitrust claim, the court found that the complaint failed to plausibly allege that Chicago had monopoly power in the relevant market because the ordinance merely required reporting of driver deactivations and did not control prices or competition among rideshare companies.

Davis v. Hanna Holdings, Inc. (E.D. Pa. Mar. 9, 2026): In this putative class action filed by home purchasers alleging an illegal conspiracy to maintain and enforce anticompetitive rules governing real estate brokerage commissions in violation of, among other things, Section 1 of the Sherman Act and state antitrust laws, the court denied the motion to dismiss the state antitrust claims. The court reasoned that (a) plaintiffs plausibly alleged a horizontal agreement because the mandatory rules promulgated through the National Association of Realtors constituted direct evidence of concerted action among competing brokerages, (b) the alleged rules plausibly restrained competition by inflating buyer-broker commissions and increasing home prices for buyers, thereby satisfying rule-of-reason pleading standards, and (c) plaintiffs plausibly alleged antitrust standing because homebuyers directly suffered inflated prices and reduced service quality resulting from the alleged conspiracy.

Class Actions and Other Settlements

In re Manufactured Home Lot Rents Antitrust Litig. (N.D. Ill. Mar. 10, 2026): In this nationwide class action alleging that major manufactured-home community operators conspired to fix lot rents through Datacomp’s rent reports, the court granted preliminary approval of a class settlement with Murex Properties. The settlement class includes all persons or entities that paid rent for a manufactured or modular home lot in covered communities between August 31, 2019 and the date of preliminary approval. The court found the settlement to be the product of arm’s-length negotiations and within the range of reasonableness, certified the settlement class for settlement purposes, and appointed DiCello Levitt LLP and Hausfeld LLP as class counsel. A fairness hearing is scheduled for September 3, 2026, with procedures for notice, objections, and final approval set forth in the order.

Jien v. Perdue Farms, Inc. (D. Md. Mar. 10, 2026): In this class action involving poultry processing workers, the court granted final approval of a class settlement resolving the antitrust claims against Agri Stats. The certified settlement class includes workers employed by poultry processors and related facilities across the United States from January 1, 2000 through July 20, 2021. The court found that the notice program satisfied Rule 23 and due process requirements, that the settlement was fair, reasonable, and adequate after arm’s-length negotiations and extensive discovery, and that no class members objected. The court dismissed all claims against Agri Stats with prejudice, approved the settlement class certification and appointment of class counsel, and entered final judgment binding all class members and enforcing the settlement’s releases.

***      ***      ***

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.