Last Week in Antitrust Litigation (#066)
- Kressin Powers
- 5 days ago
- 4 min read
Week of June 15, 2026
Top Takeaways
Courts Continue to Demand Concrete Competitive Harm: Dismissals in the Apple Books, boat-listing, and septic-system cases reinforce that allegations of harm to a single competitor, without plausible market-wide effects, remain insufficient to sustain antitrust claims.
Procedural Issues Are Increasingly Driving Outcomes: Recent decisions turned on arbitration provisions, class certification standards, and pleading deficiencies rather than the merits, underscoring the importance of forum selection, contract drafting, and litigation strategy in antitrust disputes.
Class Actions Advance Where Plaintiffs Offer Common Proof: The certification ruling in the Currenex foreign-exchange litigation demonstrates courts’ continued willingness to certify antitrust classes when plaintiffs present common evidence of market-wide injury, causation, and damages, even in complex financial markets.
New Cases Filed
The follow-on case that was filed is: FitFactariDC, LLC v. CoStar Grp. (N.D. Ill. June 12, 2026) (alleging CoStar entered into illegal non-compete and exclusive contracts to maintain dominance in internet commercial real estate listing services like in Shapiro Hosps. LLC v. CoStar Grp. (E.D. Va. Apr. 14, 2026))
Dispositive Orders and TROs
Kafeel v. Apple Inc. (N.D. Cal. June 11, 2026): In this pro se case alleging monopolization of the market for distribution and sale of e-books to user’s of Apple’s operating systems and devices based on Apple’s termination of plaintiff’s Apple Books publishing accounts, the court granted Apple’s motion to dismiss the antitrust claim. The court reasoned that (a) plaintiff failed to plausibly allege a relevant market because the complaint did not satisfy the requirements for a single-brand aftermarket and improperly defined the market around Apple’s own products and services, and (b) plaintiff failed to plausibly allege anticompetitive conduct because the termination of a single publisher’s accounts and alleged signaling effects on other publishers did not show harm to competition.
Keller v. Monroe Cap. Corp. (D. Md. July 28, 2025): In this case alleging that Monroe conspired with MV Realty to monopolize and restrain trade in the market for future residential real estate listing rights, the court granted in part and denied in part Monroe’s motion to compel arbitration, compelling arbitration for the Maryland plaintiffs, denying arbitration for the North Carolina plaintiff, and deferring a ruling as to the Virginia plaintiff pending limited discovery. The court reasoned that (a) equitable estoppel permitted Monroe, a nonsignatory, to enforce the arbitration provisions against the Maryland plaintiffs because their claims depended on the HBAs and alleged substantially interdependent and concerted misconduct by Monroe and MV Realty, (b) Monroe could not establish an enforceable arbitration agreement against the North Carolina plaintiff because MV Realty had agreed in a state consent judgment that the HBAs were wholly unenforceable against North Carolina consumers, and (c) further discovery was required before determining arbitrability as to the Virginia plaintiff because the signed HBA could not be located and its terms could not be evaluated.
Brill Mar., Inc. v. Boats Grp., LLC (S.D. Fl. June 16, 2026): In this case alleging unlawful monopolization and attempted monopolization of the U.S. boat listing and marketing services market, the court granted defendant’s motion to dismiss the Sherman Act claims. The court reasoned that (a) plaintiff plausibly alleged a relevant product and geographic market and monopoly power through allegations concerning specialized online boat-listing platforms and Boats Group’s dominant market share, (b) plaintiff failed to plausibly allege exclusionary or anticompetitive conduct because the challenged acquisitions reflected business growth rather than conduct harming competition, the cited contract provisions did not function as exclusive-dealing arrangements, and higher prices alone do not constitute unlawful monopolistic conduct, and (c) the attempted-monopolization claim failed for the same reason because plaintiff did not adequately allege predatory or anticompetitive conduct.
Custom Septic Sols., LLC v. Hydrodynamic Sols. Inc. (E.D. Ky. June 15, 2026): In this case alleging unreasonable restraints of trade and monopolization in violation of Kentucky’s antitrust statute, Ky. Rev. Stat. § 367.175, among other claims, arising from a septic-system manufacturer’s and distributor’s alleged efforts to exclude a certified installer from the market for septic-system installation services in central Kentucky, the court granted judgment on the pleadings for defendants on the antitrust claims. The court reasoned that (a) plaintiff failed to plausibly allege an antitrust injury because the complaint described harm to plaintiff as a competitor rather than harm to competition or consumers in the relevant market, (b) plaintiff failed to plausibly allege monopoly power, because the complaint did not show control over the relevant market, and (c) plaintiff failed to plead an attempt to monopolize a market.
Class Actions and Other Settlements
Edmar Fin. Co. v. Currenex, Inc. (S.D.N.Y. June 11, 2026): In this class action alleging that Currenex and certain trading firms engaged in a scheme to manipulate the foreign exchange market through undisclosed order-priority advantages and privileged access to nonpublic trading information, the court granted class certification for plaintiffs’ antitrust and related claims but denied certification as to the unjust enrichment claim. The court found that common questions predominated because plaintiffs’ allegations centered on uniform conduct affecting all users of the Currenex platform and because plaintiffs offered common proof of market-wide injury, causation, and damages through expert economic analysis. The court rejected arguments that individualized inquiries regarding injury, damages, statutes of limitation, or prior settlements defeated predominance, concluding that those issues either were subject to common proof or did not outweigh the common issues. The court held, however, that certification of the unjust enrichment claim was inappropriate because choice-of-law issues would require application of the laws of multiple jurisdictions and individualized analysis.
*** *** ***
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