Last Week in Antitrust Litigation (#053)
- Kressin Powers
- Mar 22
- 5 min read
Week of March 16, 2026
Top Takeaways
SEP and FRAND Litigation Evolves Under Section 2: ASUSTek v. Nokia advances claims that deceptive conduct in standard-setting and post-adoption royalty demands can constitute exclusionary conduct and monopolization in technology markets.
Horizontal and Vertical Effects Drive Merger Challenges: The Nexstar–TEGNA actions reflect increasing reliance on both local market concentration and nationwide bargaining leverage theories in Section 7 litigation involving content distribution.
Jurisdictional and Standing Doctrines Continue to Constrain Claims: Decisions in Hurley v. Google, Fry v. Capital One, and Freeland v. Nippon Steel underscore the importance of FTAIA limits, Article III standing, and proper market definition in screening merger and monopolization claims.
New Cases Filed
AASUSTek Comput. Inc. v. Nokia Techs. OY (C.D. Cal. Mar. 13, 2026): ASUSTek, ASUS Global, and ASUS Computer filed suit against Nokia alleging monopolization and attempted monopolization of the market for video coding technology in violation of, among other things, Section 2 of the Sherman Act. The complaint alleges that Nokia manipulated the standard-setting process by failing to disclose relevant patents and making false commitments to license standard-essential patents on fair, reasonable, and non-discriminatory terms, then later demanded supra-FRAND royalties, pursued global injunctions, and used non-disclosure agreements to conceal its licensing practices. According to plaintiffs, this conduct locked implementers into using Nokia’s patented technologies, excluded alternative technologies, enabled Nokia to extract supracompetitive royalties, and harmed competition and innovation in both technology markets and downstream video-enabled device markets.
State of California v. Nextar Media Grp. (E.D. Cal. Mar. 18, 2026) and Directv, LLC v. Nexstar Media Grp. (E.D. Cal. Mar. 18, 2026): DIRECTV, LLC and multiple states led by California filed suit against Nexstar Media Group, Inc. and TEGNA Inc. alleging that Nexstar’s proposed acquisition of TEGNA would substantially lessen competition in the market for licensing Big Four broadcast retransmission consent in violation of Section 7 of the Clayton Act. The complaints allege that the merger would combine major broadcast station owners, create or expand duopolies and triopolies in numerous local markets, increase Nexstar’s bargaining leverage over distributors through bundled negotiations and blackout threats, and enable it to raise retransmission fees nationwide while consolidating news operations and reducing independent local newsroom competition. According to plaintiffs, this conduct would lead to higher prices for pay-TV subscribers, foreclose head-to-head competition between Nexstar and TEGNA in local markets, and degrade the quantity, quality, and diversity of local news programming.
The follow-on cases that were filed are:
Union Line Farms, Inc. v. Mosaic Co. (D. Colo. Mar. 13, 2026) (alleging defendants conspired to fix the price of fertilizers like in Stevens v. Nutrien AG Sols. (N.D. Ill. Mar. 7, 2026))
Matson v. Koch Fertilizer, LLC (D. Kas. Mar. 16, 2026) (same)
IIHAB P'ship v. Nutrien Ltd. (W.D. Mo. Mar. 16, 2026) (same)
City of Shawnee v. Oshkosh Corp. (W.D. Ok. Mar. 16, 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))
Ebbetts Pass Fire Prot. Dist. v. REV Grp. (C.D. Cal. Mar. 18, 2026) (same)
Dispositive Orders and TROs
Hurley v. Google LLC (N.D. Cal. Mar. 17, 2026): In this case alleging monopolization and restraint of trade in violation of, among others, the Sherman Act in the market for Android app distribution arising from Google’s practices in the Google Play Store affecting Canadian consumers, the court granted defendants’ motion to dismiss. The court reasoned that (a) the Foreign Trade Antitrust Improvements Act barred the claims because the alleged conduct involved foreign transactions and foreign injury that did not satisfy the domestic-effects exception, and (b) plaintiffs failed to plausibly allege that any domestic effect of Google’s conduct proximately caused their foreign injury.
Fry v. Cap. One Fin. Corp.(N.D. Cal. Mar. 17, 2026): In this case seeking to block Capital One’s proposed $35 billion acquisition of Discover, the court granted Capital One’s motion to dismiss. The court reasoned that (a) plaintiffs lack standing because they engaged in group pleading rather than making individualized allegations, (b) plaintiffs did not plausibly plead a “substantial risk” that the merger will harm plaintiffs because the allegations are “based on attenuated chain” of events, and (c) the complaint independently failed to plausibly define relevant markets or show a reasonable probability of anticompetitive effects, relying instead on conclusory assertions.
Freeland v. Nippon Steel Corp. (N.D. Cal. Mar. 17, 2026): In this case alleging that Nippon Steel’s acquisition of U.S. Steel would substantially lessen competition in the United States steel manufacturing market in violation of Section 7 of the Clayton Act, the court granted defendants’ motion to dismiss with prejudice. The court reasoned that (a) plaintiffs failed to allege antitrust injury because they were consumers of downstream products containing steel rather than participants in the steel manufacturing market, (b) the complaint did not plausibly allege anticompetitive effects because it failed to show that the merger would increase market concentration or eliminate actual or potential competition, and (c) the amended complaint did not cure prior deficiencies and further amendment would be futile.
Class Actions and Other Settlements
Gov't Emps. Health Ass'n v. Pharms. Ltd. (D. Md. Mar. 13, 2026): In this case alleging that Actelion and related defendants delayed generic competition for Tracleer (bosentan), the court granted preliminary approval of a $65 million class settlement with Actelion and Janssen. The certified class includes third-party payors and other entities that purchased or reimbursed for the drug in numerous states and territories from 2015 to 2024. The court found the settlement the product of arm’s-length negotiations following extensive litigation and within the range of reasonableness, approved the notice plan with A.B. Data as administrator, and determined no additional opt-out period was necessary because one had already occurred. A fairness hearing is scheduled for July 1, 2026, with claims due approximately 120 days after notice and objections due in advance of the hearing.
In re Geisinger Sys. Servs. (M.D. Pa. Mar. 16, 2026): In this MDL alleging that Geisinger and Evangelical Community Hospital suppressed wages for healthcare workers through unlawful agreements, the court granted final approval of class settlements. The settlement class includes healthcare workers employed at defendants’ facilities in six Pennsylvania counties between 2014 and 2020. Finding the settlements fair, reasonable, and adequate under Rule 23, the court approved the notice program and plan of allocation, dismissed all claims with prejudice, and enforced broad releases barring further related claims. The court retained jurisdiction over administration and enforcement of the settlements and entered final judgment.
*** *** ***
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.