Last Week in Antitrust Litigation (#074)

Week of August 17, 2026

Top Takeaways

1. Foreclosure Theories Span Healthcare and Platform Markets: The OhioHealth and Compass complaints advance Section 1 and 2 theories targeting contractual anti-steering restraints and platform strategies allegedly designed to restrict rival access and preserve market power.

2. Merger Remedies Face Scrutiny Beyond the Competitive Merits: The court approved the HPE–Juniper settlement despite finding that the remedy may only partially address the alleged competitive harm—and criticized undisclosed lobbying contacts and alternative remedies—underscoring the importance of both remedy design and transparency in negotiated merger resolutions.

3. The “Rimless Wheel” Remains a Section 1 Barrier: Albert v. ASHP illustrates the difficulty of converting multiple vertical agreements and parallel conduct into a horizontal conspiracy without factual allegations establishing the connecting “rim.”

   
   

New Cases Filed

Castaneda v. Compass, Inc. (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 19, 2026): Two individuals filed a putative class action against Compass alleging that Compass acquired competing real estate brokerages and delisted rental units from publicly available platforms such as StreetEasy to monopolize or attempt to monopolize the market for rental units in New York City metro area in violation of, among others, the Sherman Act and New York’s Donnelly Act. The complaint alleges that Compass acquired numerous competing brokerages, including Stribling & Associates, Christie’s International Real Estate, and Anywhere Real Estate and its affiliated brokerages, giving Compass an alleged 80% share of Manhattan rental listings, and then began removing listings from StreetEasy and other public platforms to restrict available inventory, funnel renters into Compass’s ecosystem, and harm competing listing platforms. According to the complaint, Compass’s consolidation and delisting strategy reduced publicly available rental inventory and consumer choice, increased rents and broker fees, harmed competing listing platforms such as Zillow and StreetEasy, and reduced competition among brokerages for real estate agents.

The follow-on cases that were filed are:

• RightLine, LLC v. Corteva, Inc. (D. Del. Aug. 14, 2026) (alleging Corteva unlawfully used exclusionary loyalty programs to maintain dominance in a herbicide market like in Ott v. Syngenta Crop Prot. AG (E.D. Cal. Sept. 13, 2024))

• Bertz Farms LLC v. Nutrien Ltd. (D. Kan. Aug. 14, 2026) (alleging defendants conspired to fix the price of fertilizers like in Stevens v. Nutrien AG Sols. (N.D. Ill. Mar. 7, 2026)); Lonesome Dove Farms v. Koch Fertilizer, LLC (N.D. Miss. Aug. 14, 2026) (same)

• Buhrke v. Ass'n of Am. Med. Colls. (D.D.C. Aug. 18, 2026) (alleging defendant unlawfully monopolized mecdial residency and fellowship application platforms like in Durbal v. Ass'n of Am. Med. Colls. (D.D.C. Aug. 4, 2026))

• Deck v. NCAA (N.D. Tex. Aug. 18, 2026) (alleging NCAA’s eligibility rules are anticompetitive like in Elad v. NCAA (D.N.J. Mar. 20, 2025)); Pearce v. NCAA (S.D. Cal. Aug. 18, 2026) (same); Moore v. NCAA (D. Colo. Aug. 20, 2026) (same)

• Oster v. CoStar Grp. (E.D. Va. Aug. 20, 2026) (alleging CoStar engaged in anticompetitive conduct in the market for commercial real estate listing and information services like in Shapiro Hosps. LLC v. CoStar Grp. (E.D. Va. Apr. 14, 2026))

• Cleveland Bakers & Teamsters Health v. OhioHealth Corp. (S.D. Ohio Aug. 19, 2026) (alleging that OhioHealth used anticompetitive contractual restrictions to maintain and expand its monopoly power in the markets for acute inpatient hospital services and outpatient services like in United States v. OhioHealth Corp. (S.D. Ohio Feb. 20, 2026)).

Dispositive Orders and TROs

United States v. Hewlett Packard Enter. Co. (N.D. Cal. Aug. 12, 2026): In this case alleging that HPE’s proposed acquisition of Juniper Networks would substantially lessen competition in violation of Clayton Act § 7, the court granted the United States’ motion to enter an amended consent judgment requiring HPE to divest its Instant On business and license Juniper’s AI Ops for Mist source code. The court reasoned that (a) although the merger may substantially lessen competition and the settlement would only partially ameliorate that harm, the government faced meaningful litigation risk and could abandon its challenge if the settlement were rejected, (b) the divestiture and licensing remedies could promote competition to some extent and included adequate enforcement mechanisms, and (c) although the United States and defendants violated Tunney Act disclosure requirements by failing to disclose certain lobbying contacts and alternative remedies considered during negotiations, the states’ intervention ultimately exposed that information and eliminated any resulting prejudice, such that the settlement was in the public interest.

Albert v. Am. Soc'y of Health-Sys. Pharmacists (D. Md. Aug. 12, 2026): In this putative class action alleging that pharmacy residency employers, the American Society of Health-System Pharmacists (“ASHP”), and the administrator of ASHP’s residency matching program conspired to suppress pharmacy residents’ compensation and restrict competition for their labor in violation of the Sherman Act, the court granted defendants’ motions to dismiss without prejudice. The court reasoned that (a) plaintiffs failed to plausibly allege a horizontal agreement among residency employers because the Match agreements reflected only separate agreements between each employer and ASHP—a “rimless wheel”—and the alleged parallel conduct and plus factors did not support an inference of conspiracy, (b) the information-exchange claim independently failed because publicly posting salary information did not plausibly restrain competition given the lack of alleged market concentration, nonfungibility of residency positions, and ability of applicants to use the information when ranking programs, and (c) plaintiffs plausibly alleged a relevant labor market for pharmacy residents and would have antitrust standing if they could adequately plead an anticompetitive conspiracy, warranting leave to amend.

Neurological Surgery Prac. of Long Island v. Empire Healthchoice HMO, Inc. (E.D.N.Y. Aug. 14, 2026): In this case alleging that Empire HealthChoice unreasonably restrained competition in violation of the Sherman Act and New York’s Donnelly Act by entering into agreements with hospitals for below-cost neurosurgical reimbursement rates, the court granted defendants’ motion to dismiss. The court reasoned that (a) plaintiff failed to plausibly allege direct evidence of anticompetitive effects because it did not adequately connect the challenged reimbursement agreements to the alleged consolidation of neurosurgical practices, reduced output or quality, or higher consumer prices, (b) plaintiff failed to plausibly allege indirect evidence of anticompetitive effects because defendants’ alleged 26.2% share of the private health-insurance market was insufficient to support an inference of market power, and (c) because plaintiff failed to allege a Sherman Act claim, its parallel Donnelly Act claim also failed.

Fields v. DSM-Firmenich AG (D.N.J. Aug. 17, 2026): In this case alleging defendants engaged in conspiracy to fix, raise, and maintain prices for fragrances, the court granted defendants’ motion to dismiss. The court reasoned that plaintiff lacked antitrust standing under Illinois Brick because he purchased a finished fragrance product from Sephora rather than directly from defendants, no recognized exception to the indirect-purchaser rule applied, and the rule barred his federal damages claim regardless of whether direct purchasers were unwilling or unable to sue or whether he might otherwise satisfy the Associated General Contractors standing factors.

Nexpera LLC v. Sage Enviro Tech Ltd. (S.D. Tex. Aug. 17, 2026): In this case asserting counterclaims alleging that Nexpera engaged in sham litigation and other anticompetitive conduct in violation of, among others, the Sherman Act, the magistrate judge recommended granting in part Nexpera’s motion to dismiss the antitrust counterclaims. The magistrate judge reasoned that (a) the § 1 conspiracy counterclaims should be dismissed with prejudice because Sage and Prokop failed to plausibly identify any coconspirator or allege facts establishing concerted action, but (b) the § 2 claims should proceed because they sufficiently alleged a specialized market for KOH regeneration services, Nexpera’s market power, and exclusionary conduct—including alleged sham litigation intended to eliminate competitive pressure—and antitrust standing based on injuries flowing from that conduct.

Strata Skin Scis., Inc. v. Laseroptek Am. Corp. (E.D. Pa. Aug. 19, 2026): In this case asserting counterclaims alleging that Strata used meritless litigation to exclude competing LaserOptek products in the market for FDA-cleared UVB medical lasers used to treat inflammatory skin conditions in violation of the Sherman Act, the court granted Strata’s motion to dismiss the antitrust counterclaims. The court reasoned that Strata was protected by Noerr-Pennington immunity because LaserOptek failed to plausibly allege the sham-litigation exception, as the relevant AMA guidance and CPT code descriptors provided Strata with probable cause and a reasonable basis to believe its false-advertising claims could succeed when filed, making the litigation not objectively baseless and eliminating the need to consider Strata’s subjective motivation or antitrust standing.

Class Actions and Other Settlements

In re Papa John's Emp. & Franchisee Emp. Antitrust Litig. (W.D. Ky. Aug. 14, 2026): In this class action in which current and former employees allege that Papa John’s franchise-wide “no-poach” provisions unlawfully suppressed wages in violation of the Sherman Act, the court granted final approval of a $5 million class settlement. The court reasoned that (a) the settlement class satisfied Rule 23 despite potential differences arising from arbitration agreements and unresolved questions concerning the appropriate antitrust standard, (b) the substantial discount from plaintiffs’ estimated $195 million in damages was reasonable given significant litigation risks, the complexity and expense of continued litigation, and the fact that settlement provided the only apparent recovery for approximately half the class, and (c) the settlement provided additional prospective relief requiring Papa John’s to prohibit no-poach or no-hire provisions in new franchise agreements for five years and provide antitrust compliance training, while the extremely small number of objections and opt-outs further supported approval.

Burke v. Visa Inc. (D.D.C. Aug. 14, 2026): In this class action alleging that Visa and Mastercard conspired to restrain competition in independent ATM surcharge pricing through rules restricting ATM operators’ ability to offer lower prices for transactions routed over competing networks, the court granted preliminary approval of a $167.5 million settlement. The court preliminarily certified a nationwide settlement class of consumers who paid unreimbursed access fees for cash withdrawals at independent ATMs from October 24, 2007 through the date of preliminary approval, along with parallel statewide classes for California, Illinois, Massachusetts, and Michigan, finding the settlement likely to be fair, reasonable, and adequate under Rule 23. The court approved the notice and claims process, appointed A.B. Data as settlement administrator and U.S. Bank as escrow agent, and stayed proceedings against Visa and Mastercard pending final approval. The settlement requires Visa and Mastercard to fund $167.5 million, with Visa responsible for 53% and Mastercard for 47%, and provides that the net settlement fund will be distributed to eligible class members after approved fees and expenses. A fairness hearing was scheduled for February 17, 2027.

Arkansas v. Syngenta Crop Prot. AG (E.D. Ark. Aug. 18, 2026): In this case alleging that Syngenta and Corteva conspired to suppress competition for crop protection products by operating loyalty programs that allegedly incentivized distributors to limit purchases from generic manufacturers, the court granted preliminary approval of a settlement between the State of Arkansas and Corteva. The court found the settlement resulted from informed, non-collusive, arm’s-length negotiations and was likely to be fair, reasonable, and adequate, and approved A.B. Data as settlement administrator and a notice plan for Arkansas consumers. The court authorized the Arkansas Attorney General to use the settlement proceeds for lawful purposes including consumer notice and administration, litigation costs and attorneys’ fees, civil penalties, and restitution for Arkansas crop farmers. The court stayed proceedings against Corteva, established procedures for exclusions and objections, and scheduled a final approval hearing for December 16, 2026.

In re Google Play Store Antitrust Litig. (N.D. Cal. Aug. 18, 2026): In this antitrust action alleging that Google unlawfully monopolized the distribution of Android apps and in-app payment processing through restrictions associated with the Google Play Store, the court granted final approval of the parens patriae settlement between Google, the plaintiff states, and individual consumer plaintiffs. The court found the settlement fair, reasonable, and adequate, approved the consumer distribution plan as fair and equitable, and found that direct email and supplemental publication notice satisfied due process. The court dismissed the settled claims against Google with prejudice, approved the settlement releases, appointed Berkeley Research Group to assist with distributions, and continued Verita Global as settlement administrator. The court retained jurisdiction over settlement administration and the pending fee application, directing that $93.62 million be withheld from initial consumer distributions if distribution begins before the court resolves the requested $85 million in attorneys’ fees and approximately $8.62 million in costs and incentive awards.

In re Mexican Gov't Bonds Antitrust Litig. (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 19, 2026): In this class action alleging that financial institutions conspired to manipulate prices in the Mexican government bond market, the court granted preliminary approval of a settlement with Santander Mexico, BBVA Mexico, Citibanamex, Deutsche Bank Mexico, HSBC Mexico, and Bank of America Mexico. The court preliminarily certified a settlement class of persons who entered into Mexican government bond transactions with defendants or their affiliates between January 1, 2006 and April 19, 2017, finding Rule 23 requirements satisfied and the settlement the product of arm’s-length negotiations and within the range of fairness, reasonableness, and adequacy. The court also preliminarily approved the distribution plan and claims process, appointed A.B. Data as settlement administrator and Huntington National Bank as escrow agent, and approved a notice program providing for mailed and publication notice. The court stayed proceedings against the settling defendants, preliminarily enjoined class members from pursuing released claims, and scheduled a final fairness hearing for December 3, 2026.

***      ***      ***

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 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.