Last Week in Antitrust Litigation (#068)

Weeks of June 22 and June 29, 2026

Top Takeaways

1. Drug Pricing Cases Remain a Major Enforcement Focus: Courts advanced key generic-drug conspiracy claims and approved another large pharmaceutical settlement, showing that healthcare antitrust litigation remains highly active.

2. Judges Continue to Screen Weak Monopoly Claims: Several courts dismissed monopolization claims where plaintiffs could not show a clear duty to deal, market-wide harm, or sufficient evidence of exclusionary conduct.

3. Follow-On Litigation Keeps Growing: New lawsuits involving Google, pharmaceuticals, fire trucks, and college athletics demonstrate how major antitrust investigations continue to generate waves of private litigation.

New Cases Filed

The follow-on cases that were filed are:

• Town of Gilbert v. REV Grp. (D. Ariz. July 1, 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)); Town of Oxnard v. REV Grp. (C.D. Cal. July 6, 2026) (same)

• Nexstar Media Inc. v. Google LLC (S.D.N.Y. July 2, 2026) (alleging Google monopolized the ad server and ad exchange markets like in United States v. Google LLC (E.D. Va. Jan. 24, 2023))

• Protecting Access to Retail Pharmacy, LLC v. Prime Therapeutics LLC (W.D. Wash. July 2, 2026) (alleging defendants conspired to fix reimbursement rates for pharmaceuticals like in State of Michigan v. Express Scripts, Inc. (E.D. Mich. Apr. 28, 2025))

• Wisne v. NCAA (D. Colo. June 8, 2026) (alleging NCAA’s eligibility rules are anticompetitive like in Elad v. NCAA (D.N.J. Mar. 20, 2025))

Dispositive Orders and TROs

TranS1, LLC v. Blue Cross Blue Shield Ass’n (E.D. Pa. June 1, 2026): In this case alleging market allocation and price-fixing in health insurance industry, the court granted defendants’ motion to dismiss. The court reasoned that (a) plaintiff plausibly alleged an agreement through circumstantial evidence, including parallel reimbursement denials and alleged plus factors, but not through direct evidence, (b) plaintiff failed to plausibly allege antitrust standing because the complaint did not clearly define the relevant product market or establish plaintiff’s role as a competitor or consumer in that market, and (c) those same deficiencies prevented the court from determining whether the alleged agreement constituted an unreasonable restraint of trade.

In re Aflibercept Patent Litig. (N.D. W. Va. June 7, 2026): In this case asserting counterclaims alleging that Regeneron fraudulently procured and asserted patents covering aflibercept biosimilars in violation of Sherman Act § 2 under the Walker Process doctrine, the court dismissed Amgen’s federal antitrust counterclaims with prejudice as they related to the ’099 patent and without prejudice as they related to previously asserted patents. The court reasoned that (a) the Walker Process claims based on the ’099 patent failed because Amgen did not plead fraud with the particularity required by Rule 9(b), including facts supporting the materiality of the alleged misrepresentations or omissions, (b) the Walker Process claims based on the previously asserted patents were compulsory counterclaims in the earlier patent infringement action and therefore could not proceed in the later-filed action, although dismissal was without prejudice because no final judgment had yet been entered in the earlier case, and (c) the related California Unfair Competition Law claim rose and fell with the federal antitrust claims because it was based on the same alleged conduct.

In re Turkey Antitrust Litig. (N.D. Ill. July 7, 2026): In this case alleging a conspiracy to fix turkey prices in violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act, the court granted summary judgment for Foster Farms and Perdue on all federal antitrust claims, granted summary judgment for Butterball, Jennie-O Turkey Store, and Prestage on the rule-of-reason information-exchange claims, but denied summary judgment on the per se conspiracy claims against Butterball, Jennie-O Turkey Store, and Prestage. The court reasoned that (a) plaintiffs presented sufficient economic and circumstantial evidence, including interfirm communications and evidence surrounding the National Turkey Federation and the 2008 Outlook Report, for a reasonable jury to infer that Butterball, Jennie-O Turkey Store, and Prestage joined a per se conspiracy to restrict supply, while the evidence did not similarly support claims against Foster Farms or Perdue, (b) plaintiffs failed to establish a rule-of-reason violation because they did not show that defendants’ exchange of information through Agri Stats reports had a substantial anticompetitive effect or that defendants actually used the reports to coordinate pricing or output, and (c) the court rejected plaintiffs’ hub-and-spoke theory because the evidence did not support a horizontal agreement among the processors to use the Agri Stats reports to restrain trade.

Mo v. Internet Corp. for Assigned Names & Nos. (C.D. Cal. July 7, 2026): In this case alleging defendants engaged in anticompetitive conduct in the market for “.com registration market” in violation of the Sherman Act, the court granted Verisign’s motion to dismiss with prejudice. The court reasoned that (a) the Section 2 claim failed because Verisign had no antitrust duty to deal under the narrow Aspen Skiing exception, having never voluntarily offered single-character .com registrations and lacking any plausible exclusionary motive, (b) the Section 1 claim failed under the rule of reason because the alleged agreement was vertical rather than horizontal and plaintiff did not plausibly allege anticompetitive intent, injury to competition, or an unreasonable restraint of trade, and (c) further amendment would be futile after multiple unsuccessful attempts to cure the pleading deficiencies.

Connecticut v. Sandoz, Inc. (D. Conn. July 8, 2026): In this case alleging an overarching conspiracy among manufacturers of dermatology generic drugs in violation of antitrust laws, the court granted in part and denied in part Actavis’s summary judgment motion by dismissing claims concerning Ammonium Lactate cream and lotion, Desonide Lotion in 2011, and an alleged Fluocinonide solution conspiracy with Sandoz while allowing the remaining product-specific conspiracy claims to proceed. The court reasoned that (a) cooperating-witness testimony, contemporaneous communications, pricing evidence, and Fifth Amendment adverse inferences created triable issues as to Actavis’s participation in conspiracies involving several drugs, and (b) claims concerning Ammonium Lactate cream and lotion, Desonide lotion in 2011, and Fluocinonide solution with Sandoz failed because the evidence did not tend to exclude independent oligopolistic conduct or otherwise support a reasonable inference of agreement.

Mosaic Health, Inc. v. Sanofi-Aventis U.S., LLC (W.D.N.Y. June 26, 2026): In this case alleging that manufacturers of diabetes medications conspired in violation of Sherman Act § 1 and numerous state antitrust laws by collectively restricting access to 340B contract-pharmacy discounts for safety-net healthcare providers, the court granted in part defendants’ motion to dismiss the state-law claims. As for the state antitrust claims, the court reasoned that (a) Astra did not bar plaintiffs’ state-law antitrust claims because, as the Second Circuit had already held, the claims challenged an alleged price-fixing conspiracy rather than seeking to enforce the 340B statute or determine whether defendants violated Section 340B, and (b) plaintiffs adequately pleaded antitrust claims under the laws of most states by alleging a nationwide conspiracy that caused intrastate anticompetitive effects, but failed to state claims under the Mississippi and Utah antitrust statutes because they did not allege the wholly intrastate conduct required by Mississippi law and no named plaintiff was a Utah resident.

Class Actions and Other Settlements

Gov’t Emps. Health Ass’n v. Actelion Pharms. Ltd. (D. Md. July 1, 2026): In this class action alleging that pharmaceutical manufacturers unlawfully delayed generic competition for the pulmonary arterial hypertension drug Tracleer, the court granted final approval of a $65 million settlement with Actelion and Janssen resolving antitrust claims brought by third-party payors. The court found the settlement fair, reasonable, and adequate after more than seven years of litigation, extensive discovery, and arm’s-length negotiations, and approved a pro rata allocation plan distributing the net settlement fund based on class members’ purchases of branded Tracleer and generic bosentan. The court also approved attorneys’ fees of $21.67 million, litigation expenses of approximately $3.88 million, and a $40,000 service award to the class representative, finding the requested awards consistent with similar pharmaceutical antitrust settlements. The court dismissed the action with prejudice, approved the settlement releases, and retained jurisdiction over settlement administration.

In re Pork Antitrust Litig. (D. Minn. July 6, 2026): In this class action alleging price-fixing in the pork industry, the court granted preliminary approval of settlements between commercial and institutional indirect purchaser plaintiffs and Triumph Foods and Agri Stats. The court preliminarily certified previously certified indirect purchaser settlement classes, modified to include Illinois as a repealer jurisdiction, and found the settlement agreements negotiated at arm’s length, fair, reasonable, and within the range of possible approval. The court approved the proposed notice program and authorized dissemination of notice, including direct mail and email, while establishing procedures for objections and the final fairness hearing. The court also stayed the action as to the settling defendants pending final approval of the settlements.

Moskowitz v. Am. Express Co. (E.D.N.Y. July 7, 2026): In this case alleging that American Express’s Non-Discrimination Provisions restrained trade in the two-sided market for credit card transactions in violation of the Sherman Act and state antitrust laws, the court approved a settlement resolving the claims against American Express following a jury trial that produced a mixed verdict. The court reasoned that (a) the settlement satisfied Rule 23(e) because it resulted from arm’s-length negotiations, provided adequate relief, and fairly treated class members, (b) the notice program and claims process satisfied Rule 23 and due process requirements and the objections were overruled because the objectors lacked standing or failed to comply with procedural requirements and, in any event, lacked merit, and (c) the settlement required dismissal of the released antitrust claims with prejudice and vacatur of the prior jury verdict so that it would have no preclusive effect.

***      ***      ***

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.