Last Week in Antitrust Litigation (#075)
Week of August 24, 2026
Top Takeaways
Direct Evidence Strengthens Overarching-Conspiracy Theories: The Generic Pharmaceuticals MDL illustrates how guilty pleas, deferred prosecution agreements, employee testimony, internal communications, and evidence of “fair share” understandings can collectively support an inference of an industrywide conspiracy at summary judgment.
Manufacturer-Assisted Dealer Cartels Remain a Section 1 Risk: Gold v. Rippa Machinery demonstrates that vertical manufacturer conduct can support horizontal cartel liability where competing dealers allegedly induce the manufacturer to enforce resale-price discipline against a discounting rival.
Antitrust Injury and Market Definition Continue to Do Heavy Gatekeeping: Calhoun, Martinez, and Iron Horse show courts closely testing whether plaintiffs participate in a cognizable market and whether their injuries flow from harm to the competitive process rather than independent constraints or individualized business losses.
New Cases Filed
The follow-on cases that were filed are:
Anderson v. Tyson Foods, Inc. (D. Minn. Aug. 21, 2026) (new complaint filed in the In re Cattle & Beef Antitrust Litig. MDL)
Ramirez v. NCAA (D. Idaho Aug. 21, 2026) (alleging NCAA’s eligibility rules are anticompetitive like in Elad v. NCAA (D.N.J. Mar. 20, 2025)); Trotter v. NCAA (S.D.W. Va. Aug. 24, 2026) (same); Tu'Akoi v. NCAA (D. Idaho Aug. 26, 2026) (same)
Krasdale Foods, Inc. v. ASR Grp. Int'l (D. Minn. Aug. 24, 2026) (alleging defendants conspired to fix prices for granulated sugar like in Olivares v. ASR Grp. Int'l (D. Minn. Sept. 13, 2024))
Dewar Cap. LLC v. Keurig Green Mountain, Inc. (E.D.N.Y. Aug. 25, 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))
City of Chula Vista v. REV Grp. (S.D. Cal. Aug. 25, 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 Belleville v. REV Grp. (S.D. Ill. Aug. 27, 2026) (same)
Hutfilz v. Nutrien Ltd. (D. Kan. Aug. 26, 2026) (alleging defendants conspired to fix the price of fertilizers like in Stevens v. Nutrien AG Sols. (N.D. Ill. Mar. 7, 2026))
Dispositive Orders and TROs
Calhoun v. Cal. Interscholastic Fed'n (N.D. Cal. Aug. 20, 2026): In this putative class action challenging California high-school athletic rules under federal and state antitrust law, the court granted defendants’ motion to dismiss with limited leave to amend. The court reasoned that (a) plaintiffs failed to plausibly allege relevant markets because their proposed statewide varsity-athlete labor markets depended on amateurism and transfer restrictions previously held immune under Parker and were not defined by reasonable interchangeability, while their proposed national NIL market failed to explain why California high-school athletes’ NIL was not interchangeable with that of other athletes, and (b) plaintiffs independently failed to allege antitrust injury because their claimed lost school-affiliated NIL payments and broadcast revenues were foreclosed by independent, lawful constraints—including the immune amateurism rules and California law—rather than by the challenged NIL rule; the court permitted amendment only as to a narrowed, non-broadcast school-affiliated NIL market and corresponding injury theory.
Gold v. Rippa Machinery Grp. Co. (S.D.W. Va. Aug. 20, 2026): In this case alleging Rippa Machinery and affiliated entities engaged in various forms of anticompetitive conduct in the heavy machinery market in violation of, among other things, the Sherman and Clayton Acts, the court denied defendants’ motions to dismiss. The court reasoned that (a) plaintiffs plausibly alleged a § 1 conspiracy by claiming that competing dealers coordinated to pressure Rippa to impose and enforce minimum prices and terminate plaintiffs for refusing to comply, a type of manufacturer-assisted dealer cartel that can constitute an unlawful restraint even assuming rule-of-reason analysis applies, and (b) plaintiffs plausibly alleged attempted monopolization by defining a supported Chinese excavator market distinguished by price, warranties, parts, and service and alleging that the Rippa dealer network controlled more than 70% of that market.
Wiley v. NCAA (D. Nev. Aug. 25, 2026): In this case alleging that the NCAA’s eligibility rules are anticompetitive, the court denied plaintiff’s motions for a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction and closed the case. The court reasoned that (a) plaintiff had exhausted his five-year eligibility window regardless of whether the NCAA’s former Five-Year Rule or new Five-for-Five Rule applied, so application of the new rule would not redress his injury, and (b) an as-applied exception to the Five-Year Rule likewise would not provide redress because an unchallenged NCAA ethics violation independently rendered him ineligible, while plaintiff also failed to present evidence demonstrating a likelihood of success on his Sherman Act claim.
Cox v. CoinMarketCap OpCo LLC (D. Ariz. Aug 26, 2026): In this case alleging monopolization and attempted monopolization in the market for cryptocurrency ranking and information services based on CoinMarketCap’s alleged suppression of HEX’s market-cap ranking to protect affiliated exchange interests, the court dismissed the antitrust claims with prejudice. The court reasoned that (a) it lacked personal jurisdiction over CoinMarketCap because Clayton Act § 12’s nationwide-service provision applies only to corporations, not LLCs, and CoinMarketCap lacked sufficient contacts with Arizona, and (b) the claims against Binance.US failed because the complaint did not allege that it possessed monopoly power or even participated directly in the relevant market, while conclusory allegations that it violated the Sherman Act through its interactions with CoinMarketCap were insufficient to plausibly establish § 2 liability.
In re Generic Pharms. Pricing Antitrust Litig. (E.D. Pa. Aug. 26, 2026): In this MDL alleging price-fixing of generic drugs, the court denied defendants’ joint motion for summary judgment on the overarching conspiracy and denied Mylan’s and Lannett’s individual summary judgment motions in their entirety. The court reasoned that (a) Humana presented ample direct and circumstantial evidence—including deferred prosecution agreements, guilty pleas, employee testimony, internal communications, and evidence of industry “fair share” understandings—from which a jury could find an overarching conspiracy to coordinate prices and market shares across multiple drugs, (b) sufficient evidence supported Mylan’s participation in alleged conspiracies involving clomipramine, benazepril, divalproex, and levothyroxine and Lannett’s participation in alleged conspiracies involving baclofen, digoxin, and levothyroxine, including parallel pricing, competitively sensitive communications, conduct contrary to independent economic interests, and traditional evidence of conspiracy, and (c) sufficient evidence also permitted a jury to find that Mylan and Lannett knowingly participated in the overarching conspiracy, including evidence that they exchanged advance pricing information, refrained from poaching customers, adhered to “fair share” principles, and coordinated pricing and market-allocation decisions across drugs.
Martinez v. U.S. Junior Nat'ls, Inc. (E.D. Pa. Aug. Aug. 26, 2026): In this putative class action alleging that U.S. Junior Nationals unlawfully tied participation in its elite girls’ youth basketball tournaments to hotel accommodations booked through selected lodging providers and monopolized or attempted to monopolize the related lodging market in violation of Sherman Act §§ 1–2, the court granted defendant’s motion to dismiss with leave to amend. The court reasoned that (a) plaintiff plausibly alleged an agreement with lodging providers and a relevant national market for elite youth exposure tournaments, but failed to plausibly allege USJN’s market power because she provided no meaningful market-share allegations, adequately supported barriers to entry, or other facts showing consumers could not substitute competing tournaments, (b) the alternative rule-of-reason claim failed because allegations of higher hotel prices and reduced lodging choices did not sufficiently connect the challenged policy to actual detrimental effects on competition, and (c) the § 2 claims failed because the same deficiencies precluded an inference of monopoly power or a dangerous probability of monopolization and plaintiff did not plausibly allege specific intent to monopolize rather than conduct potentially motivated by legitimate business purposes.
Iron Horse Transp., LLC v. DET Diesel Emission Techs. LLC (N.D. Tex. Aug. 26, 2026): In this case alleging that DET monopolized or attempted to monopolize the market for diesel particulate-filter core-replacement services by using purported intellectual-property rights and restrictive licensing terms to foreclose competing alternatives, the court granted DET’s motion for partial summary judgment. As to the antitrust claim, the court reasoned that Iron Horse lacked antitrust standing because it neither intended nor prepared to compete in the core-replacement market, as the evidence showed that it never performed core-replacement services, had no plans to do so, and became DET’s customer and licensee rather than a competitor; moreover, its failure to enter the market resulted from its franchisor’s restrictions and its owner’s lack of interest rather than DET’s allegedly exclusionary conduct, making its alleged injury that of a dissatisfied customer rather than an antitrust plaintiff.
Class Actions and Other Settlements
Little v. Pac. Seafood Procurement, LLC (N.D. Cal. Aug. 24, 2026): In this case alleging a price-fixing conspiracy among Dungeness crab buyers in violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act, the court granted preliminary approval of settlements with Pacific Dream Seafoods, the Caito Defendants, and non-party Fisherman’s Choice. The settlements create a $2.25 million fund—$1 million from Pacific Dream and $1.25 million from the Caito Defendants—to fund continued litigation against the non-settling defendants, while Fisherman’s Choice agreed to provide cooperation concerning relevant persons, events, witness testimony, and the Dungeness crab industry. The court found the settlements non-collusive and within the range of possible approval, noting that the monetary settlements represented approximately one-sixth of estimated non-trebled damages attributable to those defendants and preserved plaintiffs’ ability to seek full damages from the remaining defendants under joint and several liability. The court conditionally certified the settlement class, approved the notice plan, appointed Simpluris as settlement administrator, and scheduled a final fairness hearing for December 18, 2026.
In re Turkey Antitrust Litig. (N.D. Ill. Aug. 26, 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 covering both direct purchasers and commercial and institutional indirect purchasers. For the previously certified direct purchaser class, the court preliminarily approved settlements with Butterball, Hormel Foods, and Jennie-O Turkey Store, finding them the product of arm’s-length negotiations and fair, reasonable, and adequate, and approved a consolidated notice and claims process covering those settlements and previously approved settlements with Agri Stats, House of Raeford, Prestage, Foster Farms, and Perdue. For the previously certified commercial and institutional indirect purchaser class, the court preliminarily approved settlements with Foster Farms and Perdue on the same grounds, but deferred notice so those settlements could be included with the previously approved House of Raeford and Agri Stats settlements and additional settlements. The court declined to provide either class another opportunity to opt out because class members had already received exclusion rights following certification, and scheduled the direct purchaser settlements for a November 24, 2026 fairness hearing while directing the indirect purchasers to submit a consolidated notice and final-approval schedule later.
*** *** ***
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