Last Week in Antitrust Litigation (#057)

Week of April 13, 2026

Top Takeaways

1. Market Power Through Data and Contracts Under Fire: Lawsuits against CoStar claim the company used exclusivity and data restrictions to block competitors, highlighting risks for businesses that control key information platforms.

2. Regulators and Plaintiffs Target Industry Coordination: Cases involving trading cards and advertising practices show continued scrutiny of both mergers and coordinated standards that may limit competition.

3. Courts Deliver Mixed Outcomes: Some major claims—like those against Live Nation—are moving forward or succeeding, while others are being dismissed where plaintiffs cannot show real competitive harm.

   
   

New Cases Filed

Shapiro Hosps. LLC v. CoStar Grp. (E.D. Va. Apr. 14, 2026): Shapiro Hospitalities, on behalf of itself and similarly situated commercial real estate customers, filed suit against CoStar Group and CoStar Realty alleging anticompetitive conduct the nationwide internet commercial real estate listing and information services markets in violation of the Sherman Act. The complaint alleges that CoStar maintained dominance in these markets by entering non-compete and exclusive dealing agreements with major brokerages and imposing restrictive customer contract terms that prevent users from sharing their own data with competing platforms, reinforced through technological and contractual enforcement mechanisms. According to plaintiff, this conduct forecloses rivals, raises barriers to entry, and enables defendants to charge supracompetitive prices while limiting innovation and customer choice in markets characterized by strong network effects.

Malm, Inc. v. CoStar Group, Inc. (C.D. Cal. Apr. 15, 2026): Malm also filed a putative class action against CoStar Group and CoStar Realty alleging substantially similar monopolization and exclusive dealing claims as in Shapiro v. CoStar (discussed above). The Malm complaint places greater emphasis on CoStar’s use of content manipulation techniques such as watermarking and data “fingerprinting,” and asserts additional state-law claims under California antitrust and unfair competition statutes.

Rasmussen v. Collectors Holdings, Inc. (C.D. Cal. Apr. 14, 2026): Plaintiff filed a putative class action against Collectors Holdings, Professional Sports Authenticator, Sportscard Guaranty, and Beckett Grading anticompetitive acquisitions in the market for trading card grading services in violation of the Sherman and Clayton Acts. The complaint alleges that Collectors acquired competing grading companies that had offered lower prices and faster services, then increased prices, extended turnaround times, and reduced the competitive significance of those acquired firms while consolidating market share. According to plaintiff, these acquisitions eliminated key competitive constraints and enabled defendants to charge supracompetitive prices and degrade service quality in a highly concentrated market.

The follow-on cases that were filed are:

• JS Farms, Inc. v. Nutrien AG Sols., Inc. (D. Conn. Apr. 10, 2026) (alleging defendants conspired to fix the price of fertilizers like in Stevens v. Nutrien AG Sols. (N.D. Ill. Mar. 7, 2026))

• RH Grain Farms LLC v. Nutrien Ltd. (D. Kan. Apr. 10, 2026) (same)

• Drohman v. Nutrien AG Sols., Inc. (D.N.H. Apr. 10, 2026) (same)

• Carroll v. Nutrien Ltd. (N.D. Ill. Apr. 13, 2026) (same)

• Fillingim Farms, Inc. v. Nutrien Ltd. (N.D. Ill. Apr. 15, 2026) (same)

• Red River Ag, LLC v. Nutrien Ltd. (N.D. Ill. Apr. 16, 2026) (same)

• MH Sub I, LLC v. Google LLC (N.D. Cal. Apr. 13, 2026) (alleging Google monopolized the ad server and ad exchange markets like in United States v. Google LLC (E.D. Va. Jan. 24, 2023))

• TRUSTX Digit. Advert. Servs., Inc. v. Google LLC (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 16, 2026) (same)

• Durango Fire Prot. Dist. v. Oshkosh Corp. (D. Colo. Apr. 14, 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))

• City of Hartford v. REV Grp. (D. Conn. Apr. 10, 2026) (same)

• State of California v. REV Grp. (C.D. Cal. Apr. 15, 2026) (same)

• City of Portland v. REV Grp. (D. Ore. Apr. 15, 2026) (same)

Dispositive Orders and TROs

Bentzen v. Anesthesia Assocs., PA (E.D. Tex. Apr. 8, 2026): In this case alleging that defendants monopolized the market for certified registered nurse anesthetists, the court denied plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction seeking to enjoin enforcement of the noncompete provisions. The court reasoned that (a) plaintiffs failed to demonstrate a likelihood of success on the merits because the alleged restraints were subject to rule-of-reason analysis and defendants asserted procompetitive justifications not rebutted at this stage, (b) plaintiffs did not establish irreparable harm because their injuries were compensable and geographically limited, and (c) the balance of equities and the Anti-Injunction Act weighed against granting relief despite some evidence of reduced market capacity.

Gibson v. Nat’l Ass’n of Realtors (W.D. Mo. Apr. 9, 2026): In this class action challenging alleged nationwide conspiracies in residential real estate commission practices, the court denied defendant Berkshire Hathaway’s motion for summary judgment. The court reasoned that (a) the settlement agreement unambiguously excluded the parent company from release, so claims against it were not barred despite its subsidiary’s participation in the settlement, (b) the single-enterprise doctrine did not preclude liability where plaintiffs alleged a broader conspiracy involving additional actors, and (c) the scope of the release depended on contractual intent, which preserved plaintiffs’ right to pursue antitrust claims against the non-settling defendant.

Connecticut v. Sandoz, Inc. (D. Conn. Apr. 10, 2026): In this case alleging an overarching conspiracy among manufacturers of dermatology generic drugs in violation of antitrust laws, the court granted in part Amneal’s motion for summary judgment. The court reasoned that (a) plaintiffs presented sufficient circumstantial evidence—including parallel price increases, interfirm communications, and adverse inferences from Fifth Amendment invocations—to create a triable issue of conspiracy for the specific Phenytoin market, (b) such evidence could allow a jury to infer agreement rather than independent conduct, and (c) the record lacked sufficient evidence linking the defendant to the broader overarching conspiracy, warranting summary judgment in Amneal’s favor on that theory.

FTC v. Dentsu US, Inc., GroupM Worldwide LLC, Publicis, Inc. (N.D. Tex. Apr. 15, 2026): The FTC and several states simultaneously filed a complaint and consent orders alleging that defendants violated Sherman Act § 1 and FTC Act § 5 in the market for media buying services by agreeing through trade groups to adopt uniform “brand safety” standards that restricted advertising on certain news and political content. Plaintiffs further alleged that this coordination suppressed competition among ad agencies, reduced advertising inventory, and harmed both advertisers and publishers by demonetizing disfavored viewpoints. The consent orders require that defendants (a) cease any agreements or coordinated practices restricting advertising placements based on specified ideological or content-based criteria, (b) refrain from directing advertising spend, overriding advertiser placements, refusing to deal with advertisers, or using or promoting exclusion lists based on those criteria, except at advertiser direction, and (c) implement compliance measures including monitoring, reporting, and oversight to prevent recurrence of the alleged conduct.

State of New York v. Live Nation Ent., Inc. (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 15, 2026): In this case alleging that Sherman Act claims against Live Nation and Ticketmaster based on their alleged conditioning the rental of its large amphitheaters on the purchase of its concert-promotion services, a jury found in favor of plaintiffs on all antitrust claims. The jury determined that (a) the relevant markets (primary ticketing services to major concert venues, primary concert ticketing services to major concert venues, and use of large amphitheaters) were properly defined and defendants possessed and maintained monopoly power through exclusionary conduct, (b) such conduct caused anticompetitive effects including overcharges, and (c) Live Nation unlawfully tied promotion services to venue access, resulting in liability across federal and multiple state antitrust and consumer protection claims.

Cellustar Corp. v. Sprint Sols. Inc. (D.P.R. Mar. 31, 2026): In this case alleging price discrimination in violation of the Robinson-Patman Act and analogous Puerto Rico law in the market for prepaid cellular phones, the court granted defendants’ summary judgment motion. The court reasoned that (a) the alleged price differences reflected legitimate cost-based logistical distinctions rather than discriminatory pricing, (b) plaintiff failed to demonstrate competitive injury or a cognizable price differential, and (c) disparities in inventory allocation and distribution relationships did not constitute unlawful promotional discrimination under §§ 2(d)–(e).

***      ***      ***

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.