Last Week in Antitrust Litigation (#058)

Week of April 20, 2026

Top Takeaways

1. Antitrust Claims Expand into New Industries: A lawsuit in the Christian music touring space shows that antitrust risk can arise in any industry where a few players control access to key opportunities or customers. 

2. Courts Require More Than Similar Pricing: Judges dismissed claims where plaintiffs could not show actual coordination, emphasizing that similar pricing alone doesn’t prove a conspiracy. 

3. Real Estate and Membership Rules Still Under Challenge: Courts allowed claims tied to broker rules and association control to move forward, reflecting ongoing scrutiny of industry-wide practices that affect competition.

New Cases Filed

Thriving Child. Advocs., LLC v. Waterland Priv. Equity Invs., B.V. (M.D. Tenn. Apr. 20, 2026): Thriving Children Advocates and related plaintiffs filed suit against Waterland Private Equity and numerous affiliated promoters, artists, and organizations alleging monopolization, unlawful acquisitions, tying, and group boycott conduct in the markets for contemporary Christian music touring and nonprofit sponsorship services in violation of, among others, the Sherman and Clayton Acts. The complaint alleges that defendants consolidated control over Christian concert promoters and essential inputs, then leveraged that dominance to coerce artists and nonprofits into exclusive arrangements, eliminate a rival intermediary through coordinated refusals to deal, misuse confidential information, and deploy defamatory statements to disrupt contracts and foreclose competition. According to plaintiffs, this conduct foreclosed access to essential touring platforms, raised prices, redirected sponsorship revenues, and enabled defendants to control pricing and output while excluding competitors and reducing market participation.

The follow-on cases that were filed are:

• Isom v. Trane Techs. PLC (E.D. Mich. Apr. 20, 2026) (alleging manufacturers conspired to raise and fix the price of HVAC equipment like in Berg v. Robert Bosch LLC (E.D. Mich. Mar. 20, 2026))

• Precision Plumbing, Elec., Heating & Cooling Inc. v. Robert Bausch LLC (E.D. Mich. Apr. 21, 2026) (same)

• Safford's Heating, Cooling, & Refrigeration v. Robert Bosch, LLC (E.D. Mich. Apr. 22, 2026) (same)

• DMSD Rests., Inc. v. Cal-Maine Foods, Inc. (C.D. Cal. Apr. 20, 2026) (alleging conspiracy to fix prices of conventional fresh shell eggs like in King Kullen Grocery Co. v. Cal-Maine Foods, Inc. (S.D. Ind. Nov. 6, 2025))

• DenWest Rests., Inc. v. Cal-Maine Foods, Inc. (C.D. Cal. Apr. 20, 2026) (same)

• City of Fullerton v. Oshkosh Corp. (C.D. Cal. Apr. 21, 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 Allentown v. REV Grp. (E.D. Pa. Apr. 22, 2026) (same)

• Potayto-Potahto, LLC v. Visa Inc. (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 21, 2026) (alleging defendants conspired to fix interchange fees charged for credit card transactions like in In re Payment Card Interchange Fee & Merchant Discount Antitrust Litig. (E.D.N.Y.))

• Jewett Farms, LLC v. Nutrien Ltd. (N.D. Ill. Apr. 22, 2026) (alleging defendants conspired to fix the price of fertilizers like in Stevens v. Nutrien AG Sols. (N.D. Ill. Mar. 7, 2026))

• Flaten v. Nutrien Ltd. (D. Minn. Apr. 22, 2026) (same)

• Book Farms v. Nutrien Ltd. (W.D. Mo. Apr. 22, 2026) (same)

Dispositive Orders and TROs

Connecticut v. Sandoz, Inc. (D. Conn. Apr. 16, 2026): In this case alleging an overarching conspiracy among manufacturers of dermatology generic drugs in violation of antitrust laws, the court granted Sun Pharmaceutical’s motion for summary judgment as to the Methylphenidate and Phenytoin price fixing claims. The court reasoned that (a) although parallel pricing existed, plaintiffs failed to present evidence that tended to exclude independent conduct or showed defendant joined any agreement, (b) the cited communications and circumstantial evidence were speculative or equally consistent with lawful behavior, and (c) absent a triable Sherman Act violation, the state-law claims also failed while the court required plaintiffs to show cause on the overarching conspiracy theory.

Mo v. Internet Corp. for Assigned Names & Nos. (C.D. Cal. Apr. 17, 2026): In this case alleging defendants engaged in anticompetitive conduct in the market for “.com registration market” in violation of the Sherman Act, the court granted Verisign’s motion to dismiss. The court reasoned that (a) plaintiff failed to plausibly allege a relevant geographic market, which aspects of the agreements were allegedly anticompetitive, or how the alleged anticompetitive effects outweigh procompetitive justifications and (b) the § 2 claim also failed because there was no duty to deal with the plaintiff.

Lutz v. Homservices of Am., Inc. (S.D. Fl. Apr. 17, 2026): In this case alleging a conspiracy among real estate brokerages to inflate buyer-agent commissions in violation of, among others, Section 1 of the Sherman Act and various state antitrust laws, the court granted in part defendants’ motion to dismiss, dismissing certain antitrust claims. The court reasoned that (a) plaintiffs plausibly alleged an agreement through NAR’s mandatory rules as direct evidence of concerted action among competitors, (b) plaintiffs sufficiently pleaded horizontal, vertical, and hub-and-spoke conspiracy theories based on defendants’ participation in and enforcement of those rules, and (c) certain claims were dismissed or limited based on statute-of-limitations, pleading, and remedy deficiencies while other issues, including antitrust standing, required further briefing.

Rudnitsky v. International Checkers Ass’n of N. Am. Inc. (S.D. Fl. Apr. 22, 2026): In this case alleging the International Checkers Association of North America (“ICAONA”) and its executive director engaged in anticompetitive conduct in the market for organization, governance, and sanctioning of Word Draughts Federation-recognized international draughts competitions, the magistrate judge recommended denying in part defendants’ motion to dismiss, allowing the antitrust claims to proceed. The court reasoned that the Sherman Act claims were properly brought through the Clayton Act’s private right of action.

***      ***      ***

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.