Last Week in Antitrust Litigation (#061)
- Kressin Powers
- 7 days ago
- 6 min read
Week of May 11, 2026
Top Takeaways
Aftermarket and Access-Control Theories Gain Traction: Fleet Salvage v. Porsche and Bantam v. Huntsville Utilities reflect continued reliance on aftermarket monopolization and essential-access theories targeting firms that allegedly leverage proprietary systems and regulatory authority to foreclose rivals.
Platform Conduct Analysis Becomes More Nuanced: The Sezzle v. Shopify ruling demonstrates courts’ willingness to distinguish between actionable exclusionary conduct under Sections 1 and 2 and insufficient coercion necessary to sustain tying claims.
Large-Scale Coordination Cases Continue to Mature: The evolving Sandoz litigation and the finalized Ray v. NCAA settlement underscore courts’ increasing comfort managing sprawling conspiracy and labor-market cases through targeted evidentiary screening and substantial classwide relief.
New Cases Filed
Fleet Salvage Sys., Inc. v. Porsche Cars N. Am., Inc. (N.D. Ga. May 6, 2026): Fleet Salvage on behalf of itself and similarly situated Porsche vehicle owners, filed a putative class action against Porsche Cars alleging monopolization and conspiracy to monopolize the market for Porsche repair and maintenance services in violation of the Sherman Act. The complaint alleges that Porsche designed vehicle software and electronic systems to restrict access to essential diagnostic, coding, calibration, and repair tools to Porsche-authorized dealers, thereby foreclosing independent repair providers and forcing owners to obtain repairs and maintenance exclusively through authorized dealerships. According to plaintiff, these restrictions enabled Porsche dealers to charge supracompetitive prices for repairs and Porsche-branded parts, reduced consumer choice, and increased repair costs and delays for Porsche vehicle owners.
N.Y. Solar Auth. Ltd. v. City of New York (S.D.N.Y. May 8, 2026): New York Solar Authority filed suit against the City of New York alleging that the City unlawfully restricted competition for a public solar photovoltaic installation project through mandatory project labor agreement, bonding, and certification requirements in violation of, among others, the Sherman Act. The complaint alleges that DCAS conditioned eligibility for the Project on execution of a project labor agreement requiring exclusive union hiring practices, imposed allegedly excessive $17.5 million surety bond requirements, and required NABCEP certification despite New York licensed master electricians already possessing full legal authority to perform the work. According to plaintiff, these requirements excluded most qualified non-union solar contractors from competing for the Project, reduced price competition, entrenched union-affiliated contractors’ market position, and unlawfully restricted the competitive bidding process for public solar installation contracts in New York City.
Zillow Grp., Inc. v. Midwest Real Est. Data, LLC (N.D. Ill. May 12, 2026): Zillow filed suit against Midwest Real Estate Data and Compass alleging that defendants conspired to restrain competition in the market for Chicagoland residential real estate listing creation and distribution in violation of the Sherman Act. The complaint alleges that defendants coordinated to prevent Zillow from enforcing listing transparency standards by threatening to terminate Zillow’s access to MRED’s listing feeds, revising MLS rules to prohibit exclusion of private listings, and terminating direct brokerage listing feeds in order to protect Compass’s private listing network and suppress competing transparent listing platforms. According to plaintiffs, this conduct reduced transparency in residential real estate markets, foreclosed competition from rival listing and brokerage platforms, entrenched defendants’ market power, and harmed home buyers, sellers, agents, and competing brokerages by restricting access to listings and preserving private listing networks.
Bantam Bldg. Performance, LLC v. Huntsville Utils. (N.D. Ala. May 13, 2026): Bantam Building Performance filed suit alleging that Huntsville Utilities engaged in unlawful anticompetitive conduct in the market for new home energy code compliance inspections in violation of, among others, the Sherman Act. The complaint alleges that Huntsville Utilities used its position as the exclusive local utility provider and administrator of TVA’s new home rebate program to require that qualifying HERS inspections within its service territory be performed only by Huntsville Utilities inspectors, thereby excluding competing inspection companies from rebate eligibility and diverting inspection business to itself. According to plaintiff, this conduct foreclosed competition in the relevant market, caused builders and consumers to face reduced choice and longer inspection delays, and enabled Huntsville Utilities to capture a dominant share of the market and associated rebate revenues.
The follow-on cases that were filed are:
City of Santa Clara v. REV Grp. (N.D. Cal. May 8, 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 Rochester v. Oshkosh Corp. (E.D. Wis. May 8, 2026) (same); City of Green Bay v. REV Grp. (E.D. Wis. May 8, 2026) (same); City of Yonkers v. REV Grp. (S.D.N.Y. May 11, 2026) (same)
Husky Heating & Cooling, LLC v. Robert Bosch LLC (E.D. Mich. May 11, 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))
C&L, LLC v. Cal-Maine Foods, Inc. (W.D. Wis. May 13, 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))
Koon v. Nutrien Ltd. (W.D. Mo. May 14, 2026) (alleging defendants conspired to fix the price of fertilizers like in Stevens v. Nutrien AG Sols. (N.D. Ill. Mar. 7, 2026))
Dispositive Orders and TROs
Connecticut v. Sandoz, Inc. (D. Conn. May 7, 2026): In this case alleging an overarching conspiracy among manufacturers of dermatology generic drugs in violation of antitrust laws, the court granted in part Taro’s summary judgment motion, dismissing claims involving certain drugs and injunctive relief while allowing conspiracy claims regarding other drugs to proceed. The court reasoned that (a) claims survived where extensive interfirm communications, cooperating witness testimony, parallel conduct, and Fifth Amendment inferences permitted a reasonable jury to infer coordinated agreements to stabilize prices or allocate customers, (b) claims failed where the evidence reflected lawful oligopolistic behavior equally consistent with independent conduct and did not tend to exclude noncollusive explanations, and (c) injunctive relief was unavailable because plaintiffs failed to show a real and immediate threat of recurring antitrust violations given the age of the alleged conduct and the departure of key personnel.
Sezzle, Inc. v. Shopify Inc. (D. Minn. May 11, 2026): In this case alleging that Shopify Inc. used its dominance in drag-and-drop e-commerce platforms to exclude Sezzle’s competing buy-now, pay-later (BNPL) payment service in violation of, among other things, Sections 1 and 2 of the Sherman Act and Minnesota’s antitrust law, the court granted in part Shopify’s motion to dismiss by dismissing the tying claims while allowing the monopolization and restraint-of-trade claims to proceed. The court reasoned that (a) Sezzle plausibly alleged distinct foremarkets and aftermarkets, Shopify’s monopoly power, and exclusionary conduct through fees, checkout design, and restrictions disadvantaging rival BNPL providers, (b) the tying claims failed because merchants and consumers retained viable alternatives and were not plausibly coerced into using Shopify’s payment products, and (c) the contractual third-party payment fee and related restrictions plausibly constituted unreasonable restraints of trade under the rule of reason because they allegedly impaired competition in the BNPL aftermarket on Shopify platforms.
Class Actions and Other Settlements
Ray v. NCAA (E.D. Cal. Jan. 6, 2026): In this case alleging the NCAA’s “volunteer coach” bylaw unlawfully barred pay to Division I assistant coaches in violation of the Sherman Act, the court granted final approval of a $303 million settlement on behalf of approximately 7,700 former coaches who worked between 2019 and 2023. The settlement provides payments based on sport, school, and years worked, with class members receiving approximately 68.8% of estimated damages after fees and costs and a guaranteed minimum payment of $5,000. The court found the agreement the product of arm’s-length negotiations following extensive litigation and discovery, with no objections and only 12 opt-outs. The court also approved $90.9 million in attorneys’ fees, approximately $3.6 million in litigation costs, and $25,000 service awards for each of the five named plaintiffs.
*** *** ***
If you have any antirust questions or would like more information about any of these matters, please contact one of the following authors:
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.
Comments