Last Week in Antitrust Litigation (#067)

Weeks of June 22 and June 29, 2026

Top Takeaways

1. Government Enforcement Intensifies in Food and Healthcare Markets: The DOJ’s benchmark-manipulation case against Cal-Maine and Pennsylvania’s negotiated resolution of the Allegheny Health merger underscore continued aggressive enforcement through both structural and behavioral remedies in essential consumer and healthcare markets.

2. Private Follow-On Litigation Continues to Gain Momentum: New lawsuits involving shipping containers, DRAM, coffee pods, fire trucks, and Google’s ad tech business reflect the continued expansion of follow-on antitrust litigation across industries following major government investigations and earlier private actions. 

3. Courts Continue to Separate Parallel Conduct from Conspiracy: The Sandoz ruling granting summary judgment to Pfizer reinforces that corporate affiliation, shared services, or parallel business conduct alone do not establish participation in a conspiracy absent evidence linking the defendant to the alleged agreement.

New Cases Filed

Echo Windy City Transportation, LLC v. Price For Limo, LLC (E.D. Wis. June 24, 2026): Echo Windy City  and Aries Charter T filed suit against Price For Limo and Price 4 Charter Buses and Limos alleging that defendants coordinated to create and operate deceptive websites falsely portraying themselves as local charter bus companies in order to monopolize and restrain competition in the market for charter bus transportation services in the Chicagoland area in violation of, among others, the Sherman Act. The complaint alleges that defendants operated dozens of fictitious local transportation websites using nonexistent business identities and addresses, concealed their role as Florida-based transportation brokers, diverted customer inquiries through a centralized lead-generation system, and steered bookings to local carriers while collecting brokerage commissions. According to the complaint, defendants’ coordinated scheme caused plaintiffs to lose sales, market share, revenue, and goodwill.

The follow-on cases that were filed are:

• Postmedia Network Inc. v. Google LLC (S.D.N.Y. June 19, 2026) (alleging Google monopolized the ad server and ad exchange markets like in United States v. Google LLC (E.D. Va. Jan. 24, 2023))

• City of Tacoma v. REV Grp. (E.D. Wis. June 22, 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 Tuscaloosa v. REV Grp. (E.D. Wis. June 23, 2026) (same); City of Tampa v. REV Grp. (E.D. Wis. June 24, 2026) (same)

• Atl. Coast Container, Inc. v. China Int'l Marine Containers Co. (N.D. Cal. June 24, 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)); Witte v. China Int’l Marine Containers (Grp.) Co. (N.D. Cal. June 26, 2026) (same)

• Garciaguirre v. Samsung Elecs. Co. (N.D. Cal. June 25, 2026) (alleging defendants fixed supply and prices for DRAM like in Lee v. Micron Tech., Inc. (N.D. Cal. May 3, 2021))

• Campbell v. NCAA (N.D. Ill. June 25, 2026) (alleging NCAA’s eligibility rules are anticompetitive like in Elad v. NCAA (D.N.J. Mar. 20, 2025)); Fuller v. NCAA (D. Nev. June 29, 2026) (same)

• Performance Food Grp. v. Keurig Green Mountain, Inc. (E.D.N.Y. July 1, 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))

Dispositive Orders and TROs

Connecticut v. Sandoz, Inc. (D. Conn. June 23, 2026): In this case alleging an overarching conspiracy among manufacturers of dermatology generic drugs in violation of antitrust laws, the court granted Pfizer’s motion for summary judgment. The court reasoned that (a) the evidence did not permit a reasonable jury to find that Pfizer directly participated in the alleged conspiracies because its shared services and approval of certain Greenstone WAC price increases did not establish knowledge of or involvement in any collusive agreements, (b) evidence that Pfizer allegedly failed to investigate reports of unrelated collusive conduct did not support an inference that it participated in the charged conspiracies involving the drugs at issue, and (c) Greenstone’s conduct could not be imputed to Pfizer because the record did not support an agency relationship or otherwise show that Pfizer directed or instigated the alleged anticompetitive conduct.

United States v. Cal-Maine Foods, Inc. (N.D. Iowa June 29, 2026):  The Department of Justice and several states filed a complaint alleging that Cal-Maine Foods and other egg producers conspired to manipulate benchmark egg prices in violation of Sherman Act § 1 by submitting and coordinating sham bids and transactions that were not based on legitimate business needs in order to influence published egg price benchmarks, and simultaneously filed a proposed final judgment resolving the claims against Cal-Maine. Under the proposed final judgment, Cal-Maine would be prohibited from communicating or agreeing with competitors regarding bidding strategies, bids, transactions, or benchmark-reporting practices, would be subject to extensive antitrust compliance, certification, auditing, reporting, and inspection requirements, and would remain bound by the decree for five years, while the claims against the remaining defendants would continue.

Pennsylvania v. Allegheny Health Network (W.D. Pa. June 26, 2026): In this case alleging that Allegheny Health Network’s proposed acquisition of Heritage Valley Health System would substantially lessen competition in one or more healthcare services markets in violation of Clayton Act § 7, the court entered a negotiated final order resolving Pennsylvania’s challenge to the transaction. The order requires that (a) the merged entity comply with extensive behavioral remedies governing health-plan contracting, including separate contracting, arbitration procedures, prohibitions on most-favored-nation clauses, anti-steering restrictions, tying arrangements, and new fees, (b) maintain open physician privileges, nondiscriminatory access, referral practices, hospital operations, and other protections designed to preserve competition and patient choice in the affected geographic market, and (c) remain subject to reporting, compliance, notice, and enforcement provisions, including advance notice of future hospital acquisitions, for a ten-year period.

Class Actions and Other Settlements

Brantmeier v. NCAA (M.D.N.C. June 29, 2026): In this class action alleging that the NCAA unlawfully restricted Division I tennis players from retaining prize money earned in outside competitions, the court granted preliminary approval of a class settlement providing both injunctive and monetary relief. The settlement permits prospective student-athletes to retain all pre-enrollment prize money without losing NCAA eligibility and establishes a $2 million fund to compensate athletes who forfeited prize money through November 21, 2025, with distributions made on a pro rata basis to eligible claimants. The court found the proposed settlement, allocation plan, and notice program likely to satisfy Rule 23(e), while noting that potential adequacy concerns regarding current Division I athletes and the scope of the injunctive release would be considered further at final approval if warranted. The court approved dissemination of notice, appointed a settlement administrator, and scheduled a final fairness hearing for January 8, 2027.

***      ***      ***

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.