Last Week in Antitrust Litigation (#065)

Week of June 8, 2026

Top Takeaways

1. Class Certification Remains a Major Hurdle in Labor Antitrust Cases: The denial of certification in the outpatient medical center wage-suppression litigation underscores courts’ increasing scrutiny of expert models and the difficulty of proving classwide impact and damages across diverse labor markets.

2. Industry Certification Programs Face Continued Antitrust Scrutiny: Although the court dismissed the core antitrust claim in National Auto Tools, it recognized plausible antitrust injury from alleged exclusionary certification practices, signaling that trade associations and certification bodies remain vulnerable to challenge when market access depends on their approvals.

3. Follow-On Litigation Continues to Expand Across Industries: New filings involving fire trucks, shipping containers, and NCAA NIL rights demonstrate the ongoing spread of large antitrust investigations into parallel private actions seeking damages and injunctive relief.

New Cases Filed

The follow-on cases that were filed are:

• City of Leominster v. Oshkosh Corp. (D. Mass. June 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 Des Moines v. REV Grp. (S.D. Iowa June 9, 2026) (same); City of Providence v. Oshkosh Corp. (D.R.I. June 11, 2026) (same)

• Daybreak Express, Inc. v. China Int'l Marine Containers (Grp.) Co. (N.D. Cal. June 9, 2026) (alleging shipping container manufacturers conspired to fix prices like in C.A. Spalding Co. v. China Int'l Marine Containers (Grp.) Co. (N.D. Cal. June 2, 2026))

• Ili v. NCAA (N.D. Cal. June 9, 2026) (alleging NCAA’s conduct regarding players’ name, image, and likeness is anticompetitive like in In re Collegiate Athlete NIL Litig. (N.D. Cal.))

Dispositive Orders and TROs

Nat'l Auto Tools, Inc. v. Auto. Lift Inst., Inc. (N.D. Tex. June 9, 2026): In this case alleging defendants falsely obtained and promoted industry safety certifications and coordinated to exclude competing manufacturers a conspiracy in violation of, among others, the Sherman Act, the court granted in part defendants’ motions to dismiss. As to the antitrust claim, the court reasoned that (a) plaintiff sufficiently alleged constitutional standing and antitrust injury through allegations of lost sales, lost market share, and exclusionary conduct tied to allegedly false safety certifications, but (b) the complaint failed to plausibly plead the substantive antitrust claim because it did not provide sufficient factual allegations showing how specific lift models failed to satisfy industry standards, defendants’ knowledge of any noncompliance, or the existence of an actual agreement to restrain trade.

Class Actions and Other Settlements

Pro Slab, Inc. v. Argos USA, LLC (D.S.C. June 10, 2026): In this class action alleging price-fixing of Ready-Mix Concrete, the court granted final approval of a settlement with Elite Concrete and confirmed certification of a settlement class of direct purchasers of ready-mix concrete from specified plants between 2010 and 2016. The court found the settlement fair, reasonable, and adequate, the product of arm’s-length negotiations, and supported by notice that satisfied Rule 23 and due process requirements. The court approved broad releases of antitrust claims against Elite, excluded one class member that timely opted out, and dismissed all claims against Elite with prejudice. The court retained jurisdiction to administer and enforce the settlement and directed entry of final judgment under Rule 54(b).

In re Outpatient Med. Ctr. Employee Antitrust Litig. (N.D. Ill. June 10, 2026): In this class action alleging that outpatient medical center operators entered into no-poach agreements and exchanged compensation information to suppress employee wages, the court denied certification of a proposed class of more than 6,000 senior-level employees. The court held that plaintiffs failed to establish predominance under Rule 23(b)(3) because they lacked a reliable common method of proving wage suppression, classwide antitrust impact, and damages across a diverse group of employees with different job titles, skills, geographic markets, and employment opportunities. The court excluded key portions of plaintiffs’ expert testimony, including the principal regression model used to measure wage suppression and damages, finding that the model did not reliably measure compensation effects during the alleged conspiracy period. The court concluded that individualized inquiries regarding impact and damages would predominate over common questions and therefore denied class certification.

***      ***      ***

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.