Last Week in Antitrust Litigation (#070)
- Kressin Powers
- 19 hours ago
- 5 min read
Week of July 20, 2026
Top Takeaways
Courts Continue to Closely Scrutinize Dominant-Firm Conduct: New and pending cases involving emissions-testing kiosks, physician certification, and automotive services underscore continued willingness to examine exclusive dealing, refusals to deal, and exclusionary policies that allegedly deny rivals access to essential inputs or markets.
State Merger Challenges Gain Early Momentum: A federal court temporarily blocked Paramount’s proposed acquisition of Warner Bros., reinforcing that courts remain willing to preserve the status quo where plaintiffs make a credible showing of increased concentration and potential competitive harm.
Class Actions Continue to Expand Across Traditional Industries: Courts certified broad damages classes in the Cattle & Beef litigation while allowing the gilt bond manipulation case against Deutsche Bank to proceed on strengthened conspiracy allegations, highlighting continued momentum in complex, multi-plaintiff antitrust litigation.
New Cases Filed
Moto Maxx Auto Serv. & Performance, LLC v. Neumo Grp. (S.D. Cal. July 23, 2026): Moto Maxx filed suit against Neumo Group and Quick Pass Emissions alleging that Neumo unlawfully refused to supply Moto Maxx with Georgia MV Express Tag Kiosks and entered into an unlawful exclusive dealing arrangement with Quick Pass in the market for kiosks used in the automotive emissions testing industry in certain counties in Georgia in violation of the Sherman Act and the Clayton Act. The complaint alleges that Neumo, the sole approved supplier of kiosks in the relevant market, refused to provide Moto Maxx a kiosk after initially representing that it would do so, recommended that local officials deny Moto Maxx access, and instead exclusively supplied Moto Maxx's competitor, Quick Pass, through a "Pilot Program" that foreclosed competing emissions-testing businesses from obtaining kiosks. According to the complaint, Defendants' conduct foreclosed Moto Maxx and other non-favored competitors from access to a competitively essential resource, maintained and entrenched Neumo's monopoly power, reduced output in the automotive emissions testing industry by limiting access to DOR/DMV services, and reduced consumer choice by requiring motorists to travel farther to obtain those services.
The follow-on cases that were filed are:
VC999 Packaging Sys., Inc. v. China Int'l Marine Containers (Grp.) Co. (N.D. Cal. July 17, 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))
City of Encinitas v. REV Grp. (S.D. Cal. July 23, 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))
Dispositive Orders and TROs
Ok. Firefighters Pension v. Deutsche Bank (S.D.N.Y. July 17, 2026): In this antitrust class action concerning “gilt bond transactions,” the court denied Deutsche Bank’s motion to dismiss the amended complaint. The court held that newly added chatroom transcripts plausibly alleged direct evidence of agreements among traders to manipulate Gilt prices, together with sufficient allegations of antitrust injury, fraudulent concealment, and specific personal jurisdiction over Deutsche Bank. The court concluded that the amended complaint remedied the deficiencies identified in its prior dismissal order by alleging defendant-specific communications coordinating prices and identifying specific transactions in which named plaintiffs allegedly purchased or sold Gilts at artificially inflated or suppressed prices.
State of California v. Paramount Skydance Corp. (N.D. Cal. July 20, 2026): In this case seeking to block Paramount’s proposed merger with Warner Bros. alleging it would substantially lessen competition in certain film markets, the court granted the plaintiff states’ motion for a temporary restraining order preventing the merger from closing. The court reasoned that (a) the plaintiffs demonstrated at least serious questions going to the merits by presenting evidence that the merger would significantly increase concentration in the wide-release theatrical film distribution market, including a combined market share of approximately 27% and a substantial increase in HHI, (b) the plaintiffs established irreparable harm because a substantial lessening of competition and the practical difficulty of unwinding a consummated merger warranted interim relief, and (c) the balance of equities and the public interest favored preserving the status quo to ensure effective enforcement of the antitrust laws while the court considered the request for a preliminary injunction. On July 24, 2026, Paramount agreed to delay the date on which it would close the merger to no sooner than June 1, 2027 so that the trial could proceed in the interim. This agreement allows the court to refrain from deciding whether a preliminary injunction is warranted once the temporary restraining order was scheduled to expire in August 2026.
Am. Osteopathic Ass'n v. Am. Bd. of Internal Med. (N.D. Ill. July 20, 2026): In this case alleging that the American Board of Internal Medicine (“ABIM”) engaged in a conspiracy, unlawful tying, and a group boycott in the markets for program director roles in internal medicine residency or fellowship programs and physician board certification in internal medicine, the court granted in part defendant’s motion to dismiss. The court reasoned that (a) plaintiffs adequately alleged Article III standing at this phase and antitrust standing by pleading that the challenged policy excluded competing osteopathic certification organizations and physicians from the board-certification and program-director labor markets, (b) plaintiffs failed to plausibly allege Section 1 claims because they did not sufficiently plead an agreement to restrain trade or group boycott and failed to allege that defendant had a separate economic interest in an unwanted tied product to support their tying claim, and (c) plaintiffs plausibly alleged monopoly power through direct and indirect evidence and monopolization under Section 2 because the attestation policy could constitute exclusionary conduct lacking a legitimate business justification that maintained defendant’s monopoly power by foreclosing competition from osteopathic-certified program directors and certification providers.
Class Actions and Other Settlements
In re Cattle & Beef Antitrust Litig. (D. Minn. June 16, 2026): In this class action alleging price-fixing in the cattle and beef industry, the court largely granted class certification motions brought by direct purchasers, indirect purchasers, and cattle producers while denying certification of certain proposed classes. The court certified damages classes for direct purchasers, commercial and institutional indirect purchasers, consumer indirect purchasers, and cattle producers, finding that each satisfied Rule 23(b)(3), while denying certification of the feeder cattle plaintiffs’ damages and injunctive classes, the cattle producers’ exchange class, and the commercial and institutional indirect purchasers’ and cattle producers’ proposed injunctive relief classes without prejudice. The court concluded that common evidence, including plaintiffs’ expert economic analyses, was sufficient to establish predominance and classwide impact for the certified damages classes, but found that the uncertified classes failed Rule 23 because of deficiencies such as lack of predominance, ascertainability, cohesiveness, or an overbroad inclusion of uninjured members.
*** *** ***
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 selected 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.