Last Week in Antitrust Litigation (#059)

Week of April 27, 2026

Top Takeaways

1. IP Misuse and Merger Challenges Expand Antitrust Frontiers: New suits targeting alleged sham patent enforcement in smart devices and consolidation in media markets highlight continued use of Section 2 and Section 7 theories to police both innovation markets and large-scale transactions.

2. Courts Continue to Enforce Strict Market-Definition Standards: Dismissals in cases involving airlines, housing development, and legal-services platforms underscore that failure to plausibly define a relevant market remains a primary barrier to antitrust claims.

3. Large-Scale Settlements Reinforce Ongoing Private Enforcement Pressure: Courts advanced or approved significant settlements across meat processing, payment networks, and consumer goods, reflecting sustained momentum in nationwide class actions targeting pricing and wage conduct.

   
   

New Cases Filed

Zhejian UniHome Tech. Ltd. v. Netvue Techs. Co. (E.D. Va. Apr. 24, 2026): Zhejiang UniHome filed suit against Netvue Technologies and Chuan Chen alleging Walker Process fraud through fraudulent procurement and enforcement of design patents in the market for smart bird feeders with integrated cameras in violation of, among others, Section 2 of the Sherman Act. The complaint alleges that defendants misappropriated UniHome’s designs, falsely claimed sole inventorship in patent applications, and then used those patents in a coordinated enforcement campaign against competitors and distribution partners to exclude rivals from the market. According to plaintiff, this conduct suppresses competition, chills market entry, and enables defendants to control the market for smart bird feeders with integrated cameras by threatening litigation and eliminating competing sellers.

Faust v. Paramount Skydance Corp. (N.D. Cal. Apr. 30, 2026): Plaintiffs filed suit against Paramount Skydance and Skydance Media alleging that Skydance’s acquisition of Paramount Global and Paramount’s proposed acquisition of Warner Bros. Discovery would substantially lessen competition in markets for premium video distribution, national television news, and theatrical distribution in violation of Section 7 of the Clayton Act. The complaint alleges that the transactions eliminate independent competitors, consolidate control over major entertainment and news assets, facilitate price increases and reduced promotional offerings, and create incentives to reduce output, narrow content variety, and diminish editorial independence through common ownership of major news platforms. According to plaintiffs, these effects have already resulted in higher subscription prices and reduced consumer choice and threaten further harm through increased concentration, degraded news quality, and fewer theatrical and streaming options.

The follow-on cases that were filed are:

• City of Oakland v. REV Grp. (N.D. Cal. Apr. 24, 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 Portsmouth v. REV Grp. (E.D. Wis. Apr. 27, 2026) (same)

• Hatfield v. Nutrien Ag Sols. (E.D. Cal. Apr. 27, 2026) (alleging defendants conspired to fix the price of fertilizers like in Stevens v. Nutrien AG Sols. (N.D. Ill. Mar. 7, 2026))

• Patzkowsky v. Nutrien Ag Sols. (W.D. Wis. Apr. 27, 2026) (same)

• Deline v. Koch Fertilizer, LLC (N.D. Ill. Apr. 29, 2026) (same)

• Vohs v. Canpotex Ltd. (N.D. Iowa Apr. 30, 2026) (same)

• Performance Med. Prac. LLC v. Claritev Corp. (N.D. Ill. Apr. 28, 2026) (alleging price-fixing conspiracy amount health insurers and third-party administrators like in In re Multiplan Health Ins. Provider Litig. (N.D. Ill.))

• META Surgical Assocs., LLC v. Claritev Corp. (N.D. Ill. Apr. 28, 2026) (same)

• JWP Med. Servs., LLC v. Claritev Corp. (N.D. Ill. Apr. 28, 2026) (same)

• Performance Surgical Ctr., LLC v. Multiplan, Inc. (N.D. Ill. Apr. 29, 2026) (same)

• Trinity Surgical & Pain Mgmt., LLC v. Multiplan, Inc. (N.D. Ill. Apr. 29, 2026) (same)

• Cheesecake Funk LLC v. Cal-Maine Foods, Inc. (W.D. Wis. Apr. 29, 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))

• Reliable AC Servs., LLC v. Trane Techs., PLC (E.D. Mich. Apr. 30, 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))

Dispositive Orders and TROs

G.L. Homes of Fl. Corp. v. Akel Homes LLC (S.D. Fl. Apr. 24, 2026): In this case asserting counterclaims alleging monopolization and attempted monopolization in violation of Sherman Act § 2 and analogous Florida antitrust law in the market for large-scale, master-planned residential developments based on alleged efforts to delay and increase the costs of a competing development, the court granted in part plaintiff’s motion to dismiss, dismissing the antitrust counterclaims. The court reasoned that (a) defendants failed to plausibly allege a relevant product and geographic market due to vague and shifting definitions and lack of facts showing reasonable interchangeability or cross-elasticity of demand, and (b) defendants failed to adequately plead monopoly power with nonconclusory factual allegations.

Yoshimoto v. Alaska Airlines, Inc. (D. Haw. Apr. 24, 2026): In this case challenging Alaska Airlines’ acquisition of Hawaiian Airlines, the court granted defendants’ motion to dismiss. The court reasoned that, although plaintiffs adequately alleged Article III standing, (a) plaintiffs failed to plausibly allege a relevant geographic market due to overly broad and unsupported market definitions lacking interchangeability or competitive boundaries, (b) plaintiffs failed to allege anticompetitive effects because the merger did not eliminate competition in certain markets and the alleged harms were not tied to reduced competition, and (c) plaintiffs failed to establish entitlement to injunctive relief or divestiture, including by abandoning arguments for such remedies.

Multi-State P'ship for Prevention, LLC v. Deloitte Consulting, LLP (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 28, 2026): In this case alleging defendant used misappropriated trade secrets to secure a government contract in violation of, among others, the Sherman Act, the court granted defendant’s motion to dismiss the antitrust claim. The court reasoned that (a) plaintiff failed to allege antitrust injury because the complaint described harm to a competitor rather than harm to competition or consumers, (b) plaintiff failed to plausibly define a relevant product market, and (c) absent a viable market definition, the complaint could not plausibly allege monopoly power.

Risner v. Law Sch. Admission Council, Inc. (E.D. Pa. Aug. 4, 2025): In this case alleging that the Law School Admission Council, Inc. (“LSAC”) and its member schools fixed the prices of mandatory application platform fees in violation of the Sherman Act, the court granted defendant’s motion to dismiss. The court reasoned that (a) plaintiff failed to plausibly define relevant markets due to inconsistent and unsupported allegations regarding interchangeability and two-sided platform dynamics, (b) plaintiff failed to allege anticompetitive harm across the entire platform rather than only to applicants, and (c) plaintiff failed to plausibly allege monopoly power because neither direct evidence nor a valid market definition supported such a finding.

Class Actions and Other Settlements

Brown v. JBS USA Food Co. (D. Colo. Apr. 16, 2026): In this class action case alleging Section 1 of the Sherman Act claims against multiple meat processors for suppressing employee wages at meat-processing plants through information exchanges, the court granted preliminary approval of settlements with Greater Omaha Packing and Agri Stats. The court preliminarily certified settlement classes of employees at beef and pork processing plants nationwide since 2000, finding Rule 23 requirements satisfied based on common proof of a marketwide conspiracy and wage suppression. The settlements include monetary relief and cooperation provisions, and the court found they were negotiated at arm’s length and within the range of possible approval given litigation risks. The court approved the notice plan, stayed proceedings against the settling defendants, and directed scheduling of a final fairness hearing.

In re Pork Antitrust Litig. (D. Minn. Apr. 24, 2026): In this class action alleging price-fixing in the pork industry, the court granted preliminary approval of a class settlement with Tyson, covering previously certified classes of commercial and institutional indirect purchasers. The court found the agreement negotiated at arm’s length, and fair, reasonable, and adequate under Rule 23, including an agreed modification to add Illinois as a repealer jurisdiction. The court preliminarily certified the settlement classes, approved the notice plan and schedule for objections and final approval briefing, and authorized dissemination of notice. The litigation is stayed as to Tyson pending a final fairness hearing.

B&R Supermarket, Inc. v. Visa, Inc. (E.D.N.Y. Apr. 28, 2026): In this case alleging antitrust violations related to defendants’ interchange fees and merchant practices, the court granted final approval of class settlements with Visa, Mastercard, Discover, and American Express. The court found the settlements fair, reasonable, and adequate following arm’s-length negotiations, and approved the distribution plan providing monetary relief to class members. No objections were sustained, and the court entered final judgment dismissing all claims with prejudice and binding all participating class members to broad releases. The court retained jurisdiction to administer the settlement and resolve any related disputes.

In re Fragrance End-User Plaintiff Antitrust Litig. (D.N.J. Apr. 28, 2026): In this class action claiming that fragrance manufacturers conspired to fix prices and restrict competition, the court granted preliminary approval of an $11 million class settlement with International Flavors and Fragrances. The court preliminarily certified a nationwide settlement class of end-user purchasers of consumer goods containing defendants’ fragrance products, finding Rule 23 requirements satisfied and the settlement fair, reasonable, and adequate after arm’s-length negotiations. The agreement includes monetary relief and cooperation provisions to support claims against remaining defendants, and the court approved the notice plan and set a fairness hearing for September 15, 2026. The litigation is stayed as to the settling defendant pending final approval.

***      ***      ***

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.