Last Week in Antitrust Litigation (#055)

Week of March 30, 2026

Top Takeaways

1. Control Over Data and Supply Chains Faces New Challenges: Lawsuits against CVS and a sports data provider claim companies used their control of key systems to shut out competitors and raise prices.

2. Courts Reject Weak Conspiracy Claims: Judges dismissed several cases where plaintiffs could not show that coordinated behavior actually harmed competition, not just individual businesses.

3. Some Claims Move Forward Where Harm Is Clear: Courts allowed cases to proceed when plaintiffs showed direct impact on pricing or market access, especially in healthcare and platform-based markets.

   
   

New Cases Filed

Tin Rx Holding Co. v. CVS Pharmacy, Inc. (D.R.I. Mar. 29, 2026): Tin Rx filed a putative class action against CVS Pharmacy alleging that it conspired with affiliated and third-party entities to restrain competition in the retail pharmacy market in violation of, among others, Section 1 of the Sherman Act. The complaint alleges that CVS leveraged its vertically integrated control over pharmacy benefit management, reimbursement, auditing, and drug distribution—through CVS Caremark and coordination with McKesson and its affiliates—to target and eliminate independent pharmacy competitors by imposing abusive audits, cutting off reimbursement flows, and restricting access to drug supply. According to plaintiffs, this conduct foreclosed competition, preserved CVS’s dominant market position, and contributed to the collapse of independent pharmacies, reducing patient access and choice while maintaining supracompetitive conditions in the pharmacy market.

Altenar Techs. Ltd. v. Sportradar Grp. (D.N.J. Mar. 31, 2026): Altenar Technologies filed suit against Sportradar alleging attempted monopolization and denial of essential facilities in markets for official sports data and turnkey sports betting technology platforms in violation of the Sherman Act. The complaint alleges that Sportradar leveraged exclusive agreements with major sports leagues to control access to indispensable live official data and refused to supply that data to Altenar in the United States, while simultaneously entering the downstream market with its own competing turnkey platform and conditioning or denying access to foreclose rivals. According to Altenar, this conduct excludes competitors, raises rivals’ costs, and suppresses competition, leading to reduced innovation, higher prices, and limited choice for sportsbooks and consumers in the U.S. sports betting market.

The follow-on cases that were filed are:

• R.I. Med. Soc'y v. Multiplan, Inc. (N.D. Ill. Mar. 31, 2026) (alleging price-fixing conspiracy amount health insurers and third-party administrators like in In re Multiplan Health Ins. Provider Litig. (N.D. Ill.))

• State of California v. REV Grp. (S.D. Cal. Apr. 1, 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))

• Feistel v. NCAA (N.D. Tex. Apr. 1, 2026) (alleging NCAA’s eligibility rules are anticompetitive like in Elad v. NCAA (D.N.J. Mar. 20, 2025))

Dispositive Orders and Verdicts

X Corp. v. World Fed'n of Advertisers (N.D. Tex. Mar. 26, 2026): In this case alleging a group boycott and concerted refusal to deal in the market for digital advertising services based on advertisers’ coordinated withdrawal of advertising from X through the GARM initiative, the court granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss. The court reasoned that (a) plaintiff failed to plead antitrust injury because the alleged boycott reflected advertisers’ independent purchasing decisions rather than harm to competition or consumer welfare, (b) the complaint did not plausibly allege a conspiracy that restrained trade at the supplier or competitor level as required for a group boycott claim, and (c) allegations of collective action did not substitute for facts showing defendants engaged in exclusionary conduct that foreclosed competition in a relevant market.

Chanel, Inc. v. Realreal, Inc. (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 26, 2026): In this case alleging counterclaims for concerted refusal to deal and monopolization in violation of, among others, the Sherman Act and the Donnelly Act in the market for luxury handbag resale and authentication services based on Chanel’s alleged exclusion of The RealReal from retail, advertising, and authentication channels, the court granted Chanel’s motion to dismiss the antitrust counterclaims. The court reasoned that (a) most claims were time-barred because the alleged agreements occurred outside the limitations period and later conduct did not constitute new overt acts under the continuing violation doctrine, (b) the remaining timely allegations failed to plausibly allege an agreement or harm to competition rather than harm to a competitor, and (c) the monopolization and related state antitrust claims failed for the same reasons and lack of plausible exclusionary conduct.

Directv, LLC v. Nexstar Media Grp. (E.D. Cal. Mar. 27, 2026): In this case 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 court granted plaintiff’s motion for a temporary restraining order requiring the parties to hold TEGNA separate from Nexstar pending further proceedings. The court reasoned that (a) plaintiff demonstrated a likelihood of success on the merits by defining plausible product and geographic markets and showing high market concentration and increased bargaining leverage likely to raise prices and reduce local news competition, (b) plaintiff established irreparable harm and public interest based on diminished competition and increased coercive leverage in retransmission negotiations, and (c) the balance of eques favored preserving the status quo through a hold-separate order despite defendants’ claimed integration benefits.

Phhhoto Inc. v. Meta Platforms, Inc. (E.D.N.Y. Mar. 30, 2026): In this case alleging monopolization in violation of the Sherman Act in the personal social networking services market based on Meta’s alleged exclusionary conduct against a nascent competitor, the court denied Meta’s motion to dismiss and allowed the claim to proceed on limited theories. The court reasoned that (a) plaintiff plausibly alleged monopoly power in a relevant market through control of prices, exclusion of competition, and high market share, (b) certain alleged conduct—including termination of API access, release of a competing “clone” product, and algorithmic suppression—could constitute exclusionary conduct harming competition rather than merely a competitor, and (c) other alleged acts, including refusal to integrate, removal of hashtags, and attempted employee poaching, were insufficient individually but did not defeat the plausibility of the overall monopolization claim.

Summit 360, Inc. v. Cisco Sys., Inc. (D. Minn. Mar. 30, 2026): In this case alleging that Cisco engaged in a multi-pronged campaign to eliminate independent resellers of its networking equipment in violation of Section 2 of the Sherman Act and Minnesota’s antitrust law, the court granted defendant’s motion to dismiss due to a lack of antitrust standing. The court reasoned that (a) plaintiff failed to plead antitrust injury because it alleged harm only to intrabrand competition among resellers while defining an interbrand market among manufacturers, (b) the alleged injuries were derivative of harm to customers rather than direct harm to competition in the relevant market, and (c) without a cognizable antitrust injury the federal and state antitrust claims necessarily failed.

In re Zelis Repricing Antitrust Litig. (D. Mass. Mar. 30, 2026): In this case alleging a price-fixing conspiracy in violation of the Sherman Act in the market for out-of-network healthcare reimbursement services based on defendants’ use of repricing tools to suppress provider payments, the court denied defendants’ motion to dismiss. The court reasoned that (a) plaintiffs plausibly alleged antitrust injury and standing by asserting direct harm from artificially depressed reimbursement rates caused by defendants’ conduct, (b) the complaint sufficiently alleged both horizontal and hub-and-spoke conspiracy theories through parallel conduct and plus factors indicating coordinated pricing behavior, and (c) plaintiffs adequately defined relevant product and geographic markets at the pleading stage, with factual disputes reserved for later proceedings.

Segal v. Amadeus IT Grp. (N.D. Ill. Mar. 31, 2026): In this putative class action alleging a hub-and-spoke conspiracy to exchange non-public occupancy data to facilitate supracompetitive pricing of luxury hotel rooms in violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act, the court granted defendants’ motion to dismiss. The court reasoned that (a) allegations of information exchange and parallel conduct alone did not plausibly establish an agreement or concerted action under § 1, and (b) the alleged price stabilization theory was implausible because it depended on widespread coordination without any mechanism to enforce compliance among competitors.

Stephens v. Am. Arb. Ass’n, Inc. (D. Ariz. Mar. 31, 2026): In this case alleging that the American Arbitration Association (“AAA”) unlawfully monopolized the U.S. consumer arbitration market in violation of, among others, the Sherman Act, the court denied defendant’s motion to dismiss. The court reasoned that (a) plaintiffs plausibly alleged monopoly power through high market share and barriers to entry, (b) the complaint adequately alleged willful maintenance of that power through exclusive dealing arrangements and conduct restricting competitors’ access to the market, and (c) plaintiffs sufficiently pleaded antitrust injury and standing by alleging harm from reduced choice and inferior arbitration outcomes caused by the alleged monopoly conduct.

Wise v. Amentum Servs. Inc. (D. Colo. Mar. 31, 2026): In this case alleging horizontal no-poach and blacklisting agreements in violation of, among others, the Sherman Act in the market for Antarctic support labor services based on coordinated hiring restrictions among subcontractors, the magistrate judge recommended denying in part defendants’ motion to dismiss the antitrust claim. The court reasoned that (a) plaintiffs plausibly alleged an agreement among competing employers through direct allegations of coordinated no-poach and blacklist practices that restrained labor-market competition, (b) the alleged conduct constituted a per se unlawful market allocation in the employment market by suppressing wages and mobility, and (c) plaintiffs sufficiently alleged antitrust injury through impaired bargaining power and reduced compensation, though the state statutory claim failed because no direct covenant existed between plaintiffs and defendants.

Class Actions and Other Settlements

Powers v. Health First, Inc. (M.D. Fl. Mar. 27, 2026): In this case alleging that Health First monopolized the acute care hospital market and overcharged patients and insurers, the court denied plaintiffs’ motion for class certification. The court found that no named plaintiff had standing to pursue inpatient claims and that the proposed class failed Rule 23(a) typicality and adequacy requirements due to conflicts between patients and health plans. The court further held that individualized issues—particularly regarding standing and injury—predominated over common questions, making certification improper under Rule 23(b)(3), and that injunctive relief could not be certified under Rule 23(b)(2).

Batton v. Nat’l Ass’n of Realtors (N.D. Ill. Mar. 31, 2026): In this case alleging that real estate brokerages conspired to inflate residential real estate commissions through MLS rules, the court granted preliminary approval of a class settlement with RE/MAX. The preliminarily certified settlement class includes all persons nationwide who purchased residential real estate listed on a multiple listing service during the applicable statutory periods through the notice date. The court found the agreement the product of arm’s-length negotiations, likely fair and adequate under Rule 23, and approved a notice plan administered by A.B. Data. A fairness hearing is scheduled for July 28, 2026, with deadlines set for objections, opt-outs, and claims submissions following dissemination of notice.

1925 Hooper LLC v. Nat'l Ass'n of Realtors (N.D. Ga. Mar. 31, 2026): In this putative class action alleging that multiple real estate brokerages conspired to inflate broker commission rates in violation of antitrust laws, the court granted final approval of class settlements resolving the antitrust claims, certifying a nationwide class of home sellers from October 2019 through July 2025. The settlements provide approximately $44.05 million in non-reversionary monetary relief and require significant practice changes, including disclosures that commissions are negotiable and prohibitions on compensation-based listing filtering. Finding the agreements fair, reasonable, and adequate under Rule 23 and the Eleventh Circuit’s Bennett factors, the court overruled all objections, approved attorneys’ fees of 20% of the common fund plus expenses, and dismissed claims against the settling defendants with prejudice.

***      ***      ***

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.