Last Week in Antitrust Litigation (#078)
Week of September 14, 2026
Top Takeaways
Access Restrictions Draw Challenges in Tech and Healthcare: LinkedIn faces claims that it restricted third-party integrations and required subscription upgrades to retain existing functionality, while Anthem faces claims that reimbursement penalties pressure independent physicians into its network. Both suits target access conditions allegedly limiting independent alternatives and customer choice.
Software Partners Face Exposure in Algorithmic-Pricing Litigation: The court denied SAS’s separate motion to dismiss in the extended-stay hotel litigation based on allegations of joint product development and assistance with competitively sensitive information exchanges—not merely component supply. The ruling keeps SAS in the case while reserving whether the complaint ultimately states a Sherman Act claim.
Unanswered Admissions Can Establish Antitrust Liability: In Rudnitsky, unanswered requests for admission conclusively established facts supporting summary judgment on the plaintiff’s antitrust claim. The ruling is a reminder that discovery-response failures can determine liability without a trial on disputed competitive conduct.
New Cases Filed
Fairlinked eV v. LinkedIn Corp. (N.D. Cal. Sept. 14, 2026): Fairlinked, Jaxx Technologies, Vengreso, and Mario Martinez filed suit against LinkedIn alleging that LinkedIn used its control over the Professional Social Networking Market and customer access to LinkedIn information to maintain monopolies in the Member-Authorized Data Access Services Aftermarket and Sales Navigator CRM Interoperability Aftermarket, attempt to monopolize the LinkedIn-Compatible Prospecting and Relationship Management Aftermarket and LinkedIn-Compatible Professional Writing Aftermarket, and restrain and tie purchases in those markets and, alternatively, the B2B Sales Intelligence and Sales Engagement Software Market, in violation of, among others, the Sherman Act and the California Cartwright Act. The complaint alleges that LinkedIn restricted independent software and data-access routes through customer and partner agreements, product detection and account controls, closed admission to new Sales Navigator integration partners, and, beginning February 1, 2025, required existing customers to purchase Advanced Plus—and in some instances at least ten licenses—to retain embedded-profile and display integrations previously included with lower-tier subscriptions. According to the complaint’s anticompetitive-effects allegations, these restraints reduced independent data-access and software output, impeded entry and innovation, raised developers’ costs, deterred customers from purchasing competing products, reduced choice and quality, and caused affected customers to pay higher-tier prices or lose previously purchased functionality.
Sechrist v. Isovolta Inc. (D. Ore. Sept. 14, 2026): Plaintiff filed suit against Isovolta alleging that it and its only significant competitor in decorative laminates lining cabins in airliners, Schneller, entered into a horizontal no-poach agreement not to hire each other’s employees, thereby allocating the market for the services of experienced aircraft-interior decorative-laminate sales professionals in the United States in violation of the Sherman Act. The complaint alleges that Isovolta and Schneller maintained an unwritten “gentlemen’s agreement” enforced through direct communications and that Isovolta invoked the agreement in 2025 and 2026 to prevent Schneller from hiring Sechrist despite Schneller having previously recruited him and having open sales positions. According to the complaint, the agreement eliminated competition between the two principal buyers of these specialized employees’ services, suppressed compensation and employment terms, reduced employee mobility and bargaining power, eliminated competitive bidding for employees, and caused Schneller to refuse to hire or consider Sechrist.
N. Fork Sanitation Inc. v. Maggio Env't, LLC (E.D.N.Y. Sept. 16, 2026): North Fork Sanitation filed suit against Maggio Environmental alleging that Maggio systematically filed sham litigation against competitors that obtained its former customers in order to attempt to monopolize the market for residential and commercial solid waste collection, transportation and disposal services in Suffolk County, New York in violation of, among others, the Sherman Act. The complaint alleges that Maggio filed at least ten tortious-interference lawsuits over three years against competing waste disposal companies, including two against North Fork, using the litigation process itself to impose expense, disruption, and delay whenever a customer switched to a competing provider. According to the complaint, the litigation campaign increased competitors’ costs, deterred competitors from accepting Maggio’s former customers, discouraged customers from switching providers, interfered with competition based on price, quality, reliability, and service, and thereby maintained and expanded Maggio’s market power.
Neurological Surgery Prac. of Long Island, PLLC v. Elevance Health, Inc. (Sept. 17, 2026): Neurological Surgery Practice of Long Island filed suit against Elevance Health alleging that Anthem used its must-have payer status to impose a 7.5% reimbursement penalty and potential network consequences on hospitals and ambulatory surgery centers that permit nonparticipating physicians to treat Anthem members, thereby foreclosing independent physicians and enhancing Anthem’s monopsony power in the market for the purchase of acute care hospital services reimbursed through commercial health insurance plans in the New York City metropolitan area and the market for commercially reimbursed facility-based neurosurgical professional services in Long Island and the New York City metropolitan area in violation of, among others, the Sherman Act and New York’s Donnelly Act. The complaint alleges that Anthem’s Use of a Nonparticipating Care Provider policy conditions full facility reimbursement and continued network participation on hospitals and ambulatory surgery centers ensuring that Anthem members receive professional services only from Anthem-participating clinicians or nonparticipating clinicians preapproved by Anthem, thereby pressuring independent physicians to join Anthem’s network and accept its reimbursement terms or lose access to facilities necessary to practice. According to the complaint, the policy threatens to deprive independent physicians of hospital and ambulatory-surgery-center access and commercially insured patients, reduce physician independence, output, patient choice, continuity of care, and quality, suppress physician compensation and bargaining power, and accelerate provider consolidation.
The follow-on cases that were filed are:
Ashley v. Tyson Foods, Inc. (D. Minn. Sept. 11, 2026) (new complaint filed in the In re Cattle & Beef Antitrust Litig. MDL)
Myers v. Hess Corp. (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 17, 2026) (alleging conspiracy to coordinate and constrain domestic shale oil production, fixing, raising, and maintaining the price of crude oil and derivative products like in In re Shale Oil Antitrust Litig. (D.N.M.)); Gallop v. Permian Res. Corp. (D. Del. Sept. 17, 2026) (same)
Dispositive Orders and TROs
Connecticut v. Sandoz, Inc. (D. Conn. Sept. 11, 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 Perrigo executive Douglas Boothe’s motion for summary judgment on product-specific conspiracy claims. The court reasoned that (a) sufficient evidence tied Boothe to alleged conspiracies involving Clindamycin, the July 2013-and-later Desonide ointment conduct, the 2014 Econazole price increase, Fluocinonide, and the March/April 2013 Halobetasol price increase and 2013 customer-allocation scheme, including closely timed interfirm calls surrounding pricing and market-entry events, but (b) Boothe could not be held liable for other Perrigo drug conspiracies merely because he participated in some alleged schemes, absent evidence linking him to the particular drug, timeframe, and competitors at issue; the court therefore granted summary judgment on the remaining product-specific claims.
Collision Chiropractors LLC v. Arizona (D. Ariz. Sept. 15, 2026): In this case alleging that the Arizona Board of Chiropractic Examiners and its chairman restrained trade in the Arizona chiropractic services market in violation of the Sherman Act, the court granted defendants’ motion to dismiss. The court reasoned that (a) Collision cured the prior jurisdictional defect by plausibly alleging a substantial effect on interstate commerce, (b) the rule of reason applied and the complaint plausibly alleged concerted action by Board members, but (c) Collision failed to define a coherent relevant product and geographic market or plausibly allege market-wide harm to competition rather than injury to its own business model; the court also rejected defendants’ state-action-immunity defense at the pleading stage because Collision plausibly alleged that practicing chiropractors controlled the Board, Arizona had not clearly authorized the broader challenged conduct, and the State did not actively supervise it.
In re Extended Stay Hotel Antitrust Litig. (N.D. Cal. Sept. 15, 2026): In this case alleging that extended-stay hotel companies conspired with IDeaS and SAS to fix guest-room prices and occupancy levels through use of the G3 revenue-management algorithm, the court denied SAS’s separate motion to dismiss. The court reasoned that, unlike in a related case where allegations showed only that SAS supplied one component of a revenue-management product, plaintiffs here alleged substantially more involvement by SAS, including a development partnership among SAS, IDeaS, and Hilton that was described as critical to G3 RMS, SAS’s technical assistance in enabling exchanges of competitively sensitive information, statements by SAS employees describing joint work and “joint offerings” with IDeaS, SAS collaboration on G3 RMS, and SAS certification of G3 RMS users; the court therefore found the allegations sufficient to distinguish the case from the prior dismissal, while reserving for the forthcoming ruling on defendants’ joint motion whether the complaint ultimately states a Sherman Act claim.
Rudnitsky v. International Checkers Ass’n of N. Am. Inc. (S.D. Fl. Sept. 15, 2026): In this case alleging the International Checkers Association of North America (“ICAONA”) and its executive director engaged in anticompetitive conduct in the market for organization, governance, and sanctioning of Word Draughts Federation-recognized international draughts competitions, the court granted plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment on his antitrust claim. The court reasoned that (a) ICAONA’s unanswered requests for admission were conclusively established and showed that it used mandatory membership and exclusionary rules to obtain exclusive control over national rankings and qualification pathways, suppress alternative organizations, and limit independent tournaments, and (b) plaintiff had antitrust standing because his exclusion from competitions, damage to his sporting career, and harm from suppression of his competing organization flowed directly from the challenged conduct and made him an efficient enforcer of the antitrust laws.
Class Actions and Other Settlements
In re Pork Antitrust Litig. (D. Minn. Sept. 10, 2026): In this class action alleging price-fixing in the pork industry, the court granted final approval of the settlement between direct purchaser plaintiffs and Agri Stats. The court found the settlement fair, reasonable, and adequate, concluding that it resulted from extensive factual investigation and vigorous arm’s-length negotiations by experienced antitrust counsel. The court found that notice satisfied Rule 23 and due process, that no class members objected, and that no additional opt-out opportunity was required because class members had previously received an opportunity to exclude themselves. The court dismissed the direct purchaser claims against Agri Stats with prejudice, approved the settlement releases, and entered final judgment while retaining jurisdiction over settlement administration and enforcement.
In re Fragrance Indirect Purchaser Antitrust Litig. (D.N.J. Sept. 16, 2026): In this class action claiming that fragrance manufacturers conspired to fix prices and restrict competition, the court granted final approval of the settlement between end-user purchaser plaintiffs and International Flavors & Fragrances. The court certified the settlement class, found the settlement fair, reasonable, and adequate under Rule 23, and found that the notice program was properly implemented and afforded class members adequate opportunities to object, opt out, and submit claims; no class member objected or requested exclusion. The court approved reimbursement of $165,878.65 in litigation expenses, $299,308.74 in notice and administration costs plus a $34,000 holdback, and a $1 million set-aside from the settlement fund for future litigation expenses in the continuing action against the non-settling defendants. The court approved the settlement releases, bound the settlement class to the agreement, and retained exclusive jurisdiction over implementation and enforcement of the settlement.
*** *** ***
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