Last Week in Antitrust Litigation (#072)
Week of August 3, 2026
Top Takeaways
Merger Enforcement Continues to Target Media and Healthcare: New challenges to the Paramount–Warner Bros. transaction and an HSR enforcement action against Edwards Lifesciences reflect continued aggressive scrutiny of both substantive merger effects and transaction compliance.
Courts Continue to Narrow Viable Monopolization Claims: Decisions involving Google, Treace, yacht brokerage commissions, and Under Armour reinforce that plaintiffs must plead concrete antitrust injury, plausible market definitions, and exclusionary conduct—not merely harm to individual competitors—to survive dismissal.
Labor-Market and Pharmaceutical Litigation Remain Active: A new NCAA coaching case, continued generic-drug pricing litigation, and multiple class settlements underscore the sustained momentum of antitrust enforcement in labor and healthcare markets.
New Cases Filed
Spellman v. NCAA (N.D. Cal. July 31, 2026): Plaintiff filed a putative class action against the NCAA, the Pac-12 Conference, the Big Ten Conference, the Big Twelve Conference, the Southeastern Conference, and the Atlantic Coast Conference alleging that defendants agreed to cap the number of strength and conditioning coaches that NCAA Division I Football Bowl Subdivision football programs may employ in the market for the services of strength and conditioning coaches at NCAA Division I FBS football programs in violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act. The complaint alleges that defendants collectively adopted and enforced NCAA Bylaw 11.7.4.4, which limits each FBS football program to five strength and conditioning coaches, through the NCAA's governance process, thereby preventing member institutions from independently determining how many coaches to hire based on their competitive needs and resources. According to the complaint, the challenged restriction suppresses demand for strength and conditioning coaches, depresses compensation, eliminates coaching positions that otherwise would exist, reduces the quality of training services provided to student-athletes, and creates barriers to entry for qualified professionals seeking employment in the relevant market.
New Jersey v. Amazon.com, Inc. (D.N.J. Aug. 4, 2026) and Anderson v. Amazon.com, Inc. (D.N.J. Aug. 6, 2026): The State of New Jersey and, in a separate putative class action, two individuals filed suit against Amazon alleging that Amazon used its control over its Delivery Service Partner (“DSP”) program to monopsonize and restrain competition in markets for DSP services and DSP delivery-driver labor, including through restrictions on worker mobility and no-poach practices, in violation of the Sherman Act and, in the State’s action, the New Jersey Antitrust Act. The complaints allege that Amazon created and controlled a network of dependent DSPs, dictated their compensation and operations, restricted DSPs from competing for each other’s drivers, suppressed unionization through surveillance, threats, and termination of DSP relationships, and thereby maintained buyer power over DSPs and their drivers; the private plaintiffs principally allege a nationwide class for Amazon DSP delivery drivers, with New Jersey pleaded alternatively. According to the complaints, Amazon’s conduct suppressed DSP driver wages below competitive levels, reduced worker mobility and bargaining power, maintained subcompetitive working conditions, chilled unionization, and deprived DSPs of meaningful independence and competitive compensation.
The follow-on cases that were filed are:
Albertsons Cos. v. ASR Grp. Int'l (D. Minn. Aug. 3, 2026) (alleging defendants conspired to fix prices for granulated sugar like in Olivares v. ASR Grp. Int'l (D. Minn. Sept. 13, 2024)
Teads Holding Co. v. Google LLC (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 3, 2026) (alleging Google monopolized the ad server and ad exchange markets like in United States v. Google LLC (E.D. Va. Jan. 24, 2023))
Lorient v. NCAA (N.D. W. Va. Aug. 3, 2026) (alleging NCAA’s eligibility rules are anticompetitive like in Elad v. NCAA (D.N.J. Mar. 20, 2025))
Agrovalley Inc. v. Nutrien AG Sols. (N.D. Ill. Aug. 5, 2026) (alleging defendants conspired to fix the price of fertilizers like in Stevens v. Nutrien AG Sols. (N.D. Ill. Mar. 7, 2026))
Green v. Vail Resorts, Inc. (D. Colo. Aug. 5, 2026) (alleging defendants unlawfully tied and bundled ski lift access products like in Goloja v. Vail Resorts, Inc. (D. Colo. Mar. 23, 2026))
Dispositive Orders and TROs
Wisne v. NCAA (D. Colo. July 31, 2026): In this case alleging that the NCAA’s eligibility rules are anticompetitive, the court granted plaintiffs’ motion for a temporary restraining order. The court reasoned that (a) plaintiffs were likely to succeed on the merits because they presented evidence that the rules were commercial restraints, defining the relevant labor market as Division I college athletics, showed that the NCAA’s eligibility rule substantially reduced competition in that market by excluding an entire class of athletes from competing and earning NIL compensation, and demonstrated that the NCAA’s asserted justifications either were not procompetitive or could be achieved through substantially less restrictive means, including existing waiver mechanisms, (b) plaintiffs would suffer irreparable harm through the loss of a season of athletic competition and related opportunities that could not be remedied by money damages, and (c) the balance of equities and the public interest favored injunctive relief because the NCAA failed to demonstrate substantial countervailing harm and enforcing the antitrust laws promotes competition in collegiate athletics.
In re Generic Pharms. Pricing Antitrust Litig. (E.D. Pa. Aug. 4, 2026): In this MDL alleging price-fixing of generic drugs, the court denied defendants’ motion for partial summary judgment. The court reasoned that (a) government-action tolling under Clayton Act § 5(i) did not apply based on the states’ antitrust actions because the statute applies only to proceedings instituted by the United States, (b) American Pipe tolling preserved Humana’s Theophylline claim only from the filing of the related end-payor class action, but did not independently save the broader claims at issue, and (c) summary judgment on the overarching conspiracy was inappropriate because Humana presented sufficient evidence to create a genuine dispute of material fact that defendants fraudulently concealed the alleged conspiracies through secret communications, code words, false explanations for price increases, and other concealment efforts, and that Humana exercised reasonable diligence such that when it was on inquiry notice was a question for the jury.
Huntsman v. Liberty Mut. Auto & Home Servs. (D. Colo. Aug. 3, 2026): In this case alleging that homeowner insurers conspired to restrain trade in violation of Sherman Act § 1 by sharing customers’ claims histories and using that information to deny coverage or reduce consumers’ insurance options, the magistrate judge recommended granting defendants’ motion to dismiss. The magistrate judge reasoned that (a) plaintiffs failed to establish Article III injury because their alleged reduction in insurance choices, stress, and inconvenience were not tied to any concrete monetary or other legally cognizable harm, (b) plaintiffs failed to allege injury to competition because the complaint described only individualized underwriting decisions rather than an agreement among insurers to fix prices, allocate markets, or otherwise impair the competitive process, and (c) plaintiffs failed to establish redressability because even eliminating the shared claims-history data would not prevent insurers from independently obtaining that information and declining to insure plaintiffs for the same reasons.
Faust v. Paramount Skydance Corp. (N.D. Cal. Apr. 30, 2026): In this case seeking to block Skydance’s acquisition of Paramount Global and Paramount’s proposed acquisition of Warner Bros. Discovery, the court granted defendants’ motion to dismiss. The court reasoned that (a) plaintiffs failed to establish Article III standing because alleged injuries consisting of deterrence from subscribing to Paramount+, higher Paramount+ subscription prices, and generalized assertions of reduced quality, variety, and consumer choice either were not concrete or were not plausibly traceable to the challenged mergers, (b) plaintiffs failed to establish antitrust standing in the national television news market because alleged losses of editorial independence and viewpoint diversity were not cognizable antitrust injuries, and in the theatrical distribution market because plaintiffs were consumers in a downstream market rather than participants in the allegedly restrained distribution market, and (c) although the complaint was dismissed, leave to amend was appropriate because the court could not conclude that amendment would necessarily be futile.
Dorrell v. Constellation Energy Corp. (D. Md. Aug. 5, 2026): In this putative class action alleging that several nuclear energy companies and two consulting firms conspired to suppress compensation for nuclear power generation workers, the court granted defendants’ motions to dismiss. The court reasoned that (a) the per se wage-fixing claim failed because the complaint alleged extensive compensation benchmarking and information sharing but did not plausibly allege either direct or circumstantial evidence of an actual agreement to fix or suppress wages, (b) both Sherman Act claims were untimely because the named plaintiffs failed to allege that they suffered any antitrust injury within the four-year limitations period and did not plausibly plead either a continuing violation or fraudulent concealment sufficient to toll the statute of limitations, and (c) the information-exchange claim against the Tennessee Valley Authority was dismissed with prejudice because TVA’s statutory obligation to survey and benchmark prevailing compensation created an irreconcilable conflict with plaintiffs’ Sherman Act theory, while the remaining claims were dismissed without prejudice to seek leave to amend.
Class Actions and Other Settlements
In re Turkey Antitrust Litig. (N.D. Ill. July 30, 2026): In this case alleging a conspiracy to fix turkey prices in violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act, the court granted preliminary approval of settlements between direct purchaser plaintiffs and House of Raeford, Prestage, Foster Farms, and Perdue. The court found the settlements the product of arm’s-length negotiations and likely to satisfy Rule 23(e), approved dissemination of notice to the previously certified direct purchaser class, and held that no additional opt-out opportunity was required because class members had already been afforded exclusion rights following class certification. The court approved the notice plan, appointed A.B. Data as settlement administrator and The Huntington National Bank as escrow agent for certain settlements, and established procedures and deadlines for objections and the final fairness hearing. The court further provided that, if any settlement is not finally approved or is terminated, the case schedule will be modified as necessary to permit the affected claims to proceed.
In re Diisocyanates Antitrust Litig. (W.D. Pa. Aug. 4, 2026): In this class action alleging that manufacturers conspired to fix the prices of methylene diphenyl diisocyanate and toluene diisocyanate, the court granted preliminary approval of a settlement between plaintiffs and Wanhua Chemical. The court preliminarily certified a settlement class of direct purchasers, finding the settlement the product of arm’s-length negotiations, within the range of possible approval, and fair, reasonable, and adequate for settlement purposes. The court approved a comprehensive notice and claims process, appointed co-lead settlement class counsel, Kroll as settlement administrator, and Endeavor Bank as escrow agent, approved a pro rata allocation and distribution plan for the settlement fund, and scheduled a final fairness hearing for December 7, 2026. The court stayed the litigation as to the settling defendant pending final approval of the settlement.
In re Fragrance Indirect Purchaser Antitrust Litig. (D.N.J. Aug. 4, 2026): In this class action claiming that fragrance manufacturers conspired to fix prices and restrict competition, the court granted preliminary approval of a $33 million settlement between direct purchaser plaintiffs and Firmenich. The court provisionally certified a settlement class of persons and entities that directly purchased fragrance products from defendants between January 1, 2018, and December 31, 2023, finding the settlement the product of arm’s-length negotiations and the proposed relief fair, reasonable, and adequate for preliminary approval purposes. The court approved a consolidated notice plan for the Firmenich and IFF settlements, appointed Simpluris as claims administrator and The Huntington National Bank as escrow agent, and established procedures and deadlines for exclusions and objections. The settlement also requires Firmenich to provide cooperation, including information, documents, and testimony, to assist plaintiffs in pursuing claims against the non-settling defendants, and the court scheduled a final fairness hearing for December 8, 2026.
Batton v. Nat’l Ass’n of Realtors (N.D. Ill. Aug. 4, 2026): In this case alleging that real estate brokerages conspired to inflate residential real estate commissions through MLS rules, the court granted final approval of settlement agreements with Keller Williams and RE/MAX. The court finally certified settlement classes of residential real estate purchasers, found both settlements fair, reasonable, and adequate under Rule 23(e), approved the respective distribution plans, and confirmed the appointments of class representatives, class counsel, and A.B. Data as claims administrator. The court found that no class members validly opted out of or objected to either settlement, dismissed the released claims against the settling defendants with prejudice, approved the settlement funds as qualified settlement funds, and permanently enjoined released claims against the settling defendants. The court entered final judgment under Rule 54(b) as to Keller Williams and RE/MAX while preserving the litigation against the remaining non-settling defendants.
Iron Workers Dist. Council v. Teva Pharm, Indus. Ltd. (D. Mass. Apr. 2, 2026): In this case alleging that Teva unlawfully maintained monopoly power over QVAR and delayed generic competition, the court granted final approval of a settlement between end-payor plaintiffs and Teva. The court certified a nationwide settlement class of end-payor purchasers and reimbursers, found the settlement fair, reasonable, and adequate under Rule 23(e) following arm’s-length negotiations, and concluded that the notice program satisfied Rule 23 and due process requirements. The court dismissed the action with prejudice, approved the settlement releases and final judgment, and retained jurisdiction to administer and enforce the settlement, while providing that the judgment would be vacated if the settlement failed to become effective.
*** *** ***
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.
Comments