Last Week in Antitrust Litigation (#062)

Week of May 18, 2026

Top Takeaways

1. Aftermarket and Interoperability Theories Continue to Evolve: Cases against Porsche, Deere, Sennebogen, and CoStar reflect expanding Section 2 theories focused on control of repair tools, proprietary ecosystems, and access to platform infrastructure.

2. Actavis-Based Reverse-Payment Litigation Produces Landmark Verdict: The Amitiza jury verdict reinforces the continued viability of large-and-unjustified-payment theories and demonstrates juries’ willingness to award substantial overcharge damages across multiple purchaser classes.

3. Parallel Conduct and Follow-On Litigation Maintain Momentum: The continued expansion of fertilizer, HVAC, and healthcare reimbursement suits highlights the durability of coordinated-conduct theories where plaintiffs allege concentrated markets, repeated pricing patterns, and exclusionary industry practices.

New Cases Filed

20230930-DK-Butterfly-1, Inc. v. Keurig Green Mountain, Inc. (S.D.N.Y. May 15, 2026): 20230930-DK-Butterfly-1, Inc., formerly known as Bed Bath & Beyond, filed suit against Keurig alleging monopolization, attempted monopolization, exclusive dealing, and monopoly leveraging in markets for single-serve coffee brewer and compatible coffee pods (K-Cups and competitor cups) in violation of, among others, the Sherman and Clayton Acts. The complaint alleges that Keurig maintained monopoly power through a multifaceted exclusionary scheme that included acquiring potential rivals, pursuing sham patent litigation against competing pod manufacturers, entering exclusive agreements with suppliers, distributors, retailers, and coffee brands, disparaging competing products, and designing its Keurig 2.0 brewers to block use of unlicensed compatible pods. According to plaintiff, this conduct foreclosed competition in the compatible coffee pod market, raised rivals’ costs, limited consumer choice, and enabled Keurig to impose and maintain supracompetitive prices for K-Cups purchased by retailers including Bed Bath & Beyond.

Rad Software, LLC v. Wis. Amusement & Music Operators, Inc. (W.D. Wis. May 18, 2026): RAD Software filed suit against Wisconsin Amusement & Music, Wisconsin P&P Amusement, and Michael Weigel alleging that defendants engaged in a group boycott and unlawful restraint of trade in the Wisconsin market for skill-game and sweepstakes amusement machines in violation of, among others, the Sherman Act and Wisconsin antitrust law. The complaint alleges that WAMO restricted membership to incumbent route operators, coordinated with Banilla Games and distributors to block non-WAMO members from purchasing dominant skill-game equipment in Wisconsin, and used membership verification procedures and exclusionary bylaws to foreclose new entrants while incumbent operators imposed supracompetitive revenue-sharing terms on retail venues. According to plaintiff, this closed-loop arrangement excluded innovative competitors such as RAD Software, suppressed competition and technological innovation, restricted venue choice, and enabled WAMO members to maintain inflated revenue-sharing royalties far above competitive market levels.

Process Equip., Inc. v. Sennebogen LLC (D. Del. May 21, 2026): Process Equipment filed suit against Sennebogen and Sennebogen Maschinenfabrik alleging that defendants used false threats to withhold parts, service, and maintenance support and pressured authorized service providers not to work with Process Equipment customers in order to monopolize and attempt to monopolize the market for parts, service, and maintenance of Sennebogen-brand material handlers in violation of, among others, the Sherman Act. The complaint alleges that defendants falsely claimed that refurbished Sennebogen-brand material handlers sold by Process Equipment were illegal or unsafe to operate in North America, warned customers that OSHA was taking action against users of those machines, publicly stated that Sennebogen would not support any machines sold by Process Equipment, and sought to prevent authorized service providers from servicing those machines. According to plaintiff, defendants’ conduct excluded Process Equipment from the Sennebogen Parts, Services, and Maintenance Market, maintained defendants’ control over access to repair tools and parts, and created a dangerous probability that defendants would eliminate competition, raise prices, limit output, and reduce quality in that market.

United States v. Taiheiyo Cement Corp. (D.D.C. May 21, 2026): The United States and the State of California filed suit against Taiheiyo Cement, CalPortland, and Vulcan Materials alleging that CalPortland’s proposed acquisition of Vulcan’s California ready-mix concrete operations would substantially lessen competition in the production, distribution, and sale of ready-mix concrete in San Diego County in violation of Section 7 of the Clayton Act. The complaint alleges that the transaction would eliminate substantial head-to-head competition between two of the largest suppliers of ready-mix concrete in San Diego County, increase concentration in an already highly concentrated market, and reduce competition for customers requiring ready-mix concrete for large infrastructure and commercial projects. According to the complaint’s anticompetitive effects allegations, the acquisition would likely increase the likelihood that CalPortland could unilaterally raise prices, reduce product quality and service, and facilitate anticompetitive coordination among remaining ready-mix concrete suppliers in San Diego County. The complaint seeks to enjoin the proposed transaction and prohibit defendants from consummating the acquisition or any similar combination of the parties’ ready-mix concrete operations in California. At the same time, the parties filed a proposed final judgment requiring divestiture of specified ready-mix concrete plants and related assets in Escondido, Oceanside, and Lakeside, California to Holliday Rock Co., Inc. or another approved acquirer, along with associated trucks, leases, permits, personnel, and transition services obligations.

The follow-on cases that were filed are:

• WP Co. LLC v. Google LLC (S.D.N.Y. May 15, 2026) (alleging Google monopolized the ad server and ad exchange markets like in United States v. Google LLC (E.D. Va. Jan. 24, 2023))

• Christy Webber & Co. v. Deere & Co. (N.D. Ill. May 14, 2026) (alleging John Deere engaged in unlawful anticompetitive conduct in the market for restricted repairs for Deere equipment like in FTC v. Deere & Co. (N.D. Ill. Jan. 15, 2025))

• City of Tucson v. REV Grp. (D. Ariz. May 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 Fountain Valley v. Oshkosh Corp. (C.D. Cal. May 18, 2026) (same); City of Emeryville v. REV Grp. (N.D. Cal. May 21, 2026) (same); City of Albuquerque v. REV Grp. (D.N.M. May 21, 2026) (same)

• Taurus Acquisition Grp. v. Keurig Green Mountain, Inc. (E.D.N.Y. May 18, 2026) (alleging Keurig engaged in anticompetitive conduct in the markets for single serve coffee brewers and coffee pods like in 20230930-DK-Butterfly-1, Inc. v. Keurig Green Mountain, Inc. (S.D.N.Y. May 15, 2026)); HBP I, LLC v. Keurig Green Mountain, Inc. (E.D.N.Y. May 18, 2026) (same)

• JSB Farms, LLC v. Koch Inc. (N.D. Ill. May 18, 2026) (alleging defendants conspired to fix the price of fertilizers like in Stevens v. Nutrien AG Sols. (N.D. Ill. Mar. 7, 2026)); Ray v. Nutrien Ltd. (D. Kan. May 20, 2026) (same)

• Daniel's Heating & Cooling Co. v. Robert Bosch LLC (E.D. Mich. May 19, 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))

• One Real Estate LLC v. CoStar Grp. (D.D.C. May 20, 2026) (alleging CoStar engaged in anticompetitive conduct in the the market for commercial real estate listing services like in Shapiro Hosps. LLC v. CoStar Grp. (E.D. Va. Apr. 14, 2026))

Dispositive Orders and TROs

In re Amitiza Antitrust Litig. (D. Mass. May 18, 2026): In this MDL alleging Takeda delayed generic entry of Amitiza through an agreement with Par Pharmaceutical, a jury returned a verdict for plaintiffs on the antitrust claims and awarded overcharge damages to direct purchasers, retailers, and end-payor plaintiffs. The jury found that (a) Takeda possessed substantial market power and entered a settlement containing a large and unjustified reverse payment with anticompetitive effects, (b) Takeda and Par reached an implicit agreement delaying Par’s launch of an authorized generic until April 2018 despite the availability of less restrictive alternatives, and (c) the agreement caused antitrust injury and overcharge damages to multiple purchaser classes and state end-payor plaintiffs in excess of $800,000,000, though the jury declined to award enhanced damages for “flagrant” conduct.

Class Actions and Other Settlements

In re Pork Antitrust Litig. (D. Minn. May 14, 2026): In this class action alleging price-fixing in the pork industry, the court granted preliminary approval of a settlement between direct purchaser plaintiffs and Agri Stats. The court preliminarily approved a settlement class consisting of direct purchasers of specified pork products from 2014 to 2018 and found the agreement, which includes predominantly injunctive relief and cooperation provisions, to be fair, reasonable, and within the range of possible approval following arm’s-length negotiations. The court approved a notice plan involving direct mail, email, publication, and a case-specific website, while concluding that an additional opt-out opportunity was unnecessary because class members had previously been afforded exclusion rights. The court scheduled a final fairness hearing for September 8, 2026.

In re Cattle & Beef Antitrust Litig. (D. Minn. May 14, 2026): In this class action alleging price-fixing in the cattle and beef industry, the court granted preliminary approval of a settlement between direct purchaser plaintiffs and Tyson Foods. The court preliminarily certified a settlement class of direct purchasers of specified beef products from 2015 to 2020, finding Rule 23 requirements satisfied and the settlement the product of arm’s-length negotiations conducted with the assistance of a mediator. The court approved a notice and claims process involving direct mail, email, publication notice, and electronic or check payments, and found the proposed allocation plan fair and equitable to class members. The court stayed proceedings against Tyson pending final approval and scheduled deadlines for objections, opt-outs, and a final fairness hearing.

In re Deere & Co. Repair Servs. Antitrust Litig. (N.D. Ill. May 18, 2026): In this case alleging monopolization and unlawful restrictions on independent repair services in violation of the Sherman Act and related state antitrust laws in the market for repair services for Deere large agricultural equipment, the court preliminarily approved a proposed settlement between plaintiffs and Deere. The court preliminarily certified a nationwide settlement class of all purchasers of repair services for Deere large agricultural equipment from January 10, 2018 to the present. The court reasoned that (a) the proposed settlement resulted from arm’s-length negotiations and likely satisfied Rule 23(e)’s fairness, adequacy, and reasonableness requirements, (b) the proposed settlement class satisfied Rule 23(a) and Rule 23(b)(3) because common antitrust issues predominated over individualized questions for more than 200,000 purchasers of Deere repair services, and (c) the notice and claims-administration procedures complied with due process and Rule 23 by providing direct and publication notice, opt-out rights, and objection procedures for settlement class members.

Lincoln Adventures, LLC v. Those Certain Underwriters at Lloyd's (D.N.J. May 19, 2026): In this class action alleging that Lloyd’s insurers engaged in deceptive practices and concealed a lack of competition in the insurance market, the court preliminarily approved a partial class settlement and preliminarily certified a nationwide settlement class of purchasers and renewers of insurance contracts issued by defendant Lloyd’s syndicates between 1997 and 2026. The court found the settlement the product of extensive arm’s-length negotiations conducted with the assistance of a mediator after substantial discovery and concluded that Rule 23 requirements were satisfied for settlement purposes. The order approved a comprehensive notice program involving mailed, digital, and published notice, appointed A.B. Data as claims administrator, and scheduled a final fairness hearing for October 23, 2026. The court also preliminarily enjoined class members from pursuing related released claims against the settling defendants 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.