Last Week in Antitrust Litigation (#056)

Week of April 6, 2026

Top Takeaways

1. Tech and Hiring Practices Draw New Lawsuits: A resume platform and major employers face claims they used unfair tactics to block competitors and limit worker mobility, showing antitrust risks in both digital and labor markets.

2. More Cases Follow Major Price-Fixing Allegations: New filings tied to fertilizer and healthcare pricing disputes show how large antitrust cases continue to generate additional claims across industries.

3. Settlements Provide Real Consumer and Worker Benefits: Courts moved forward with settlements in drug pricing, sports, and gaming cases, offering payments and rule changes that affect millions of people.

New Cases Filed

Rocket Resume, Inc. v. Bold Ltd. (N.D. Cal. Apr. 2, 2026): Rocket Resume filed suit against BOLD  and individual executives alleging monopolization, attempted monopolization, and conspiracy to restrain trade in the market for online resume-building platforms in violation of, among others, the Sherman Act. The complaint alleges that defendants maintained dominance by creating a network of sham entities to manipulate search advertising auctions, foreclose competitors from Google search distribution channels, engage in predatory overbidding, disseminate deceptive marketing and pricing practices, and use litigation to eliminate or absorb rivals. According to plaintiff, this conduct excludes competitors, deceives consumers, and sustains supracompetitive pricing while suppressing innovation and meaningful choice in the market.

Cheatham v. Kroger Co. (S.D. Ohio Apr. 2, 2026): Plaintiffs, commercial truck drivers, filed a putative class action against Kroger Co., Werner Trucking , Swift Transportation, and U.S. Xpress Enterprises alleging that defendants entered into a no-hire agreement restraining competition in the labor market for truck drivers in violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act. The complaint alleges that, following the bankruptcy of Quickway Transportation, Kroger directed and the carrier defendants agreed not to hire former Quickway drivers, despite actively recruiting for identical positions, thereby excluding qualified drivers from employment opportunities. According to plaintiffs, this agreement suppressed wages, reduced job mobility, and eliminated competition among employers for driver labor, constituting a per se unlawful horizontal restraint.

The follow-on cases that were filed are:

• Carroll v. Nutrien Ltd. (N.D. Ill. Apr. 3, 2026) (alleging defendants conspired to fix the price of fertilizers like in Stevens v. Nutrien AG Sols. (N.D. Ill. Mar. 7, 2026))

• Davis Ehrsam Farms, LLC v. Koch Fertilizer, LLC (D. Kan. Apr. 3, 2026) (same)

• Polifka v. Mosaic Co. (D. Kan. Apr. 3, 2026) (same)

• Samuelson v. Mosaic Co. (N.D. Cal. Apr. 6, 2026) (same)

• Click III v. Nutrien Ltd. (N.D. Ill. Apr. 7, 2026) (same)

• Cnty. of Butte v. REV Grp. (C.D. Cal. Apr. 8, 2026) (same)

• Cnty. of Shasta v. REV Grp. (C.D. Cal. Apr. 8, 2026) (same)

• Dunham Fam. Farms v. Mosaic Co. (D. Colo. Apr. 8, 2026) (same)

• Long Branch Farms LLC v. Koch Ag & Energy Sols., LLC (D. Kan. Apr. 9, 2026) (same)

• Miller v. Nutrien Ltd. (W.D. Mo. Apr. 9, 2026) (same)

• Tex. Med. Ass'n v. MultiPlan, Inc. (N.D. Ill. Apr. 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.))

• Nev. State Med. Ass'n v. MultiPlan, Inc. (N.D. Ill. Apr. 7, 2026) (same)

• Unified Fire Auth. v. REV Grp. (D. Utah Apr. 6, 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))

Class Actions and Other Settlements

Iron Workers Dist. Council v. Teva Pharm, Indus. Ltd. (D. Mass. Apr. 2, 2026): The court granted preliminary approval of a class settlement resolving antitrust claims that Teva unlawfully maintained monopoly power over QVAR and delayed generic competition, preliminarily certifying a nationwide end-payor class covering purchases from 2015 through July 2025. The court found Rule 23 requirements satisfied for settlement purposes, including commonality based on common proof of anticompetitive conduct and overcharges, and appointed class representatives and counsel. Finding the settlement the product of arm’s-length negotiations and within the range of possible approval, the court approved the notice plan, claims process, and proposed allocation, and scheduled a fairness hearing to consider final approval.

Shields v. Fed’n Internationale de Natation (N.D. Cal. Apr. 1, 2026): In this case filed by professional swimmers against World Aquatics (formerly FINA) alleging restrictions on independent swimming competitions are anticompetitive, the court granted final approval of a class settlement, certifying injunctive and damages classes of professional swimmers. The settlement provides approximately $7.63 million in total relief, including $4.63 million in damages distributed pro rata and injunctive relief eliminating restrictions on participation in independent events. Finding the agreement fair, reasonable, and adequate under Rule 23, the court noted the recovery exceeded estimated damages for certain subclasses and that no objections were filed. The court awarded $3 million in attorneys’ fees, reduced litigation costs, and $10,000 service awards per class representative.

Caccuri v. Sony Interactive Ent. LLC (N.D. Cal. Apr. 8, 2026): In this putative class action concerning digital game purchases on the PlayStation platform, the court granted preliminary approval of a $7.85 million class settlement. The settlement provides automatic cash-equivalent PSN account credits to approximately 4.4 million class members, with alternative cash payments available for deactivated accounts, and releases all related claims. Finding the agreement the product of arm’s-length negotiations and within the range of possible approval despite the case’s legal and evidentiary challenges, the court preliminarily certified the settlement class, approved the notice plan, and scheduled a final fairness hearing.

In re Turkey Antitrust Litig. (N.D. Ill. Apr. 8, 2026): In this case alleging a conspiracy to fix turkey prices in violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act, the court granted preliminary approval of a settlement with House of Raeford Farms, covering a previously certified class of commercial and institutional indirect purchasers from 2010 to 2016. The court found the agreement the product of arm’s-length negotiations and likely fair, reasonable, and adequate under Rule 23(e), warranting preliminary approval. Notice procedures and a fairness hearing schedule will be set by subsequent order, with class notice to be disseminated by September 8, 2026. The court authorized limited use of settlement funds for notice and administration costs and deferred consideration of fees and service awards.

***      ***      ***

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.