Last Week in Antitrust Litigation (#082)
Week of October 5, 2026
Top Takeaways
Reseller Restrictions Draw Horizontal Boycott Claims: Furdek alleges that Apple conditioned discounted supply on Amazon excluding nearly all third-party Apple resellers. The complaint targets coordination between competing retail channels—not simply a supplier’s unilateral selection of authorized dealers.
Local Purchasing Options Drive Merger Risk: Pennsylvania’s Colas challenge alleges the deal would combine two of three asphalt-emulsion suppliers capable of serving large government buyers, together accounting for more than 90% of PennDOT’s purchases. The case highlights why merger analysis must examine suppliers’ practical ability to serve particular customers, not just broader industry shares.
Partial Settlements Can Strengthen the Remaining Case: Courts granted final approval of separate $47 million beef and $48 million pork settlements with Tyson for commercial and institutional indirect purchasers. The beef agreement also requires Tyson to assist litigation against nonsettling defendants—pairing recovery with support for continuing claims.
New Cases Filed
Anderson v. Young (D. Colo. Oct. 12, 2026): Jon and Cassi Anderson filed suit against Kelly Connor Young, The Platinum Group, and REX Real Estate alleging that defendants blacklisted or permitted the blacklisting of plaintiffs’ nontraditional home listing and discouraged cooperating buyer agents from showing it, which constituted a group boycott in violation of the Sherman Act and the Colorado Antitrust Act. The complaint alleges that after plaintiffs listed their home through REX using a non-MLS and reduced-commission model, Young, acting for The Platinum Group, threatened to refuse to show the property and encourage other agents not to work with plaintiffs’ broker, while REX allegedly knew of the threat but failed to inform plaintiffs or take action against it. According to the complaint, the alleged boycott reduced plaintiffs’ exposure to potential buyers, showings, bargaining leverage, and sale price, delayed the sale, limited buyers’ access to available homes, and impaired competition among traditional and nontraditional brokerages on price, commission terms, listing methods, and service models.
Furdek v. Amazon.com, Inc. (W.D. Wash. Oct. 9, 2026): Jolene Furdek and Jonathan Ryan filed a putative class action Amazon and Apple alleging that the companies entered into a horizontal group-boycott agreement to eliminate nearly all third-party Apple resellers from Amazon Marketplace and thereby restrain competition in the U.S. Online Marketplaces Market, including the submarket for tablet transactions on Online Marketplaces and, alternatively, the one-sided submarket for the sale of tablets on Online Marketplaces, in violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act. The complaint alleges that under a 2018 agreement Apple authorized only seven resellers of new Apple products on Amazon Marketplace, causing Amazon to remove more than 98% of the more than 600 existing Apple resellers, while Apple provided Amazon with a steady supply of Apple products at wholesale discounts potentially exceeding 10% conditioned on Amazon maintaining the exclusion. According to the complaint, the agreement eliminated competitive pricing pressure, excluded existing and potential merchants from a critical distribution channel, reduced output and consumer choice, allowed Amazon to become the dominant seller of iPads on its platform, and caused consumers to pay supracompetitive prices while helping Apple protect higher prices on its own direct-sales channel.
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania v. Colas Inc. (W.D. Pa. Oct. 13, 2026): Pennsylvania filed suit against Colas Inc. and Suit-Kote alleging that Colas’s proposed acquisition of Suit-Kote would substantially lessen competition in local markets for the manufacture and sale of asphalt emulsions and the provision of pavement preservation services in western and central Pennsylvania in violation of Section 7 of the Clayton Act. The complaint alleges that Colas and Suit-Kote compete directly for PennDOT and municipal contracts, are two of only three asphalt-emulsion producers capable of meeting the needs of large government purchasers, and would together account for more than 90% of PennDOT’s asphalt-emulsion purchases. According to the complaint, the transaction would eliminate substantial head-to-head competition, reduce the number of competitive bidders, increase the likelihood of unilateral price increases and coordination, raise bid amounts, and reduce competitive pressure on quality, service expansion, and innovation, while high entry barriers make timely replacement of the lost competition unlikely.
The follow-on cases that were filed are:
Rosenberg v. Bausch Health Cos. (D.N.J. Oct. 12, 2026) (alleging defendants agreed to delay generic competition of a drug to treat IBS like in R.I. Laborers Health & Welfare Fund v. Bausch Health Cos. Inc. (D.R.I. Sept. 22, 2023))
City of West Jordan v. REV Grp. (Oct. 9, 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)); Glynn Cnty. v. REV Grp. (E.D. Wisc. Oct. 9, 2026) (same); City of Naples v. REV Grp. (Oct. 9, 2026) (same); Howard Cnty. v. REV Grp. (D. Md. Oct. 14, 2026) (same); Lynbrook v. Oshkosh Corp. (E.D. Wisc. Oct. 15, 2026) (same)
Jackson v. Tyson Foods, Inc. (D. Minn. Oct. 9, 2026) (new complaint filed in the In re Cattle & Beef Antitrust Litig. MDL)
Chawla Invs., Inc. v. Rouse Servs. LLC (N.D. Miss. Oct. 15, 2026) (alleging conspiracy to artificially increase construction equipment rental prices nationwide like in AXG Roofing, LLC v. RB Glob., Inc. (N.D. Ill. Apr. 1, 2025))
Rossi v. McDonalds Corp. (N.D. Ill. Oct. 15, 2026) (alleging horizontal conspiracy to fix prices through a common pricing algorithm like in Thomas v. McDonalds USA, LLC (N.D. Ill. Oct. 2, 2026))
Dispositive Orders and TROs
Coretronic Corp. v. Maxell, Ltd. (N.D. Cal. Oct. 9, 2026): In this case alleging Walker Process fraud, the court granted Maxell’s motion to dismiss the Walker Process fraud claims with leave to amend. The court reasoned that (a) plaintiffs failed to plausibly allege fraud on the PTO because they did not sufficiently allege that the undisclosed prior-art projector was material to issuance, identify the individual who allegedly committed the fraud, or plead a specific intent to deceive, (b) they failed to plausibly define a relevant market because they alleged only a vague “market for projectors” and no geographic market, and failed to allege monopoly power or a dangerous probability of achieving it, and (c) Maxell’s patent-enforcement activity was presumptively protected by Noerr-Pennington because plaintiffs had not adequately alleged either Walker Process fraud or objectively baseless enforcement sufficient to invoke an exception to that immunity.
Class Actions and Other Settlements
In re Cattle & Beef Antitrust Litig. (D. Minn. Oct. 8, 2026): In this class action alleging price-fixing in the cattle and beef industry, the court granted final approval of a $47 million settlement between commercial and institutional indirect purchaser plaintiffs and Tyson Foods. The court certified a settlement class of businesses that indirectly purchased specified boxed or case-ready beef for commercial food preparation from January 1, 2015 through May 6, 2026, finding the settlement fair, reasonable, and adequate and the product of extensive investigation, years of litigation, and arm’s-length negotiations assisted by a mediator. The court found that the settlement provides substantial monetary relief and requires Tyson to assist plaintiffs in their continuing litigation against the non-settling defendants, and that no class members objected to or requested exclusion from the settlement. The court dismissed the claims against Tyson with prejudice, approved the settlement releases, and entered final judgment while retaining jurisdiction over settlement administration and distribution.
In re Pork Antitrust Litig. (D. Minn. Oct. 8, 2026): In this class action alleging price-fixing in the pork industry, the court granted final approval of a $48 million settlement between commercial and institutional indirect purchaser plaintiffs and Tyson Foods. The court approved settlement classes of commercial food-preparation purchasers, including a nationwide injunctive class and a damages class in repealer jurisdictions, finding the settlement fair, reasonable, and adequate following extensive discovery, litigation, and arm’s-length negotiations assisted by a mediator. The court found that notice satisfied Rule 23 and due process and that no class members objected to the settlement or previously requested exclusion from the certified classes. The court dismissed the claims against Tyson with prejudice, approved the settlement releases, and entered final judgment while retaining jurisdiction over settlement administration and distribution.
*** *** ***
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