Last Week in Antitrust Litigation (#083)
Week of October 19, 2026
Top Takeaways
Keurig’s Contract Restrictions Remain a Trial Risk: The court allowed key exclusive-dealing and tying claims involving supplier, distributor, and roaster agreements to proceed while rejecting product-design, patent-litigation, and other theories. The ruling highlights the importance of assessing foreclosure across a company’s contracting network—not merely reviewing each agreement in isolation.
Merger Remedies Can Require More Than Asset Sales: Pennsylvania’s Colas resolution requires divestitures, construction of a new emulsion mill, and equipment support at the buyer’s option. The remedy illustrates how preserving competition can require investment in the buyer’s operating capacity, adding obligations beyond transferring existing plants.
$400 Million Generic-Drug Settlement Advances Toward Restitution: The court preliminarily approved the states’ settlement with Sandoz and Fougera, with approximately $280 million allocated to restitution. The proposed allocation includes distinct recoveries for consumers, state entities, and eligible corporate entities in Idaho and Washington, making the settlement’s eligibility provisions important for purchasers assessing potential recovery.
New Cases Filed
FTC v. PlayPower, Inc. (N.D. Cal. Oct. 19, 2026): The Federal Trade Commission and several states filed suit against Platinum Equity, PlayPower, Burke, and Bertram Capital alleging that Platinum Equity and PlayPower’s proposed acquisition of Burke would eliminate a close competitor and substantially lessen competition in the market for the manufacture of commercial outdoor playground equipment in violation of Section 7 of the Clayton Act and Section 5 of the FTC Act. The complaint alleges that PlayPower and Burke are among only five major U.S. manufacturers, compete intensely for schools, parks, churches, daycares, and other customers on price, quality, service, lead times, and innovation, and that Burke’s growth has taken significant business from PlayPower, prompting PlayPower to acquire the rival rather than continue competing against it. According to the complaint, the transaction would significantly increase concentration in an already concentrated market, eliminate substantial head-to-head price and non-price competition, likely result in higher prices and reduced quality, service, and innovation, diminish independent sales representatives’ bargaining options, and could not be offset by timely or sufficient entry or expansion. The court subsequently entered a stipulated temporary restraining order barring defendants from consummating the transaction until the earlier of eight days after entry of a judgment that does not prohibit the transaction or May 3, 2027, while the FTC and states seek a permanent injunction blocking the acquisition.
Davenport v. CRH plc (D.N.J. Oct. 20, 2026): New Jersey Attorney General Jennifer Davenport filed suit against CRH plc and Arcosa, Inc. alleging that CRH’s proposed acquisition of Arcosa would substantially lessen competition in the market for the manufacture and sale of hot-mix asphalt in central New Jersey in violation of Section 7 of the Clayton Act. The complaint alleges that CRH and Arcosa directly compete to supply NJDOT-approved hot-mix asphalt and that the transaction would give CRH control of thirteen of the seventeen plants serving central New Jersey, including every NJDOT-approved facility in Hunterdon and Middlesex Counties, while combining firms that account for roughly 75% of the relevant market and reducing the number of competitors from four to three. According to the complaint’s anticompetitive-effects allegations, the acquisition would eliminate substantial head-to-head competition on price, product quality, delivery, and customer support, facilitate coordination among remaining producers, increase the likelihood of unilateral price increases, and likely reduce service and product quality, while high barriers to entry would prevent timely replacement of the lost competition.
Hancock Cnty. Sch. Dist. v. Riddell Sports Grp. (S.D. Miss. Oct. 22, 2026): Hancock County School District filed a putative class action against Riddell Sports Group, Rex Team Sports, Sports Center, Varsity Brands, BSN Sports, Hibbett, and Hibbett Team Sales alleging that defendants conspired to fix prices, rig bids, and allocate contracts and customers in the market for sports equipment and related services sold to Mississippi public school districts in violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act. The complaint alleges that from at least July 2010 through October 2023 defendants coordinated responses to school procurement solicitations, exchanged pricing information, predetermined winning bidders, submitted intentionally losing or “complementary” bids to create the appearance of competition, and in some instances concealed the scheme through false bids, forged names, separate email accounts, and destruction of evidence. According to the complaint, the conspiracy restrained or eliminated price competition, caused school districts to pay artificially inflated and supracompetitive prices, deprived them of the benefits of genuine competitive bidding, and distorted procurement of sports equipment and related services for more than a decade.
The follow-on cases that were filed are:
Compass, Inc. v. Cal. Reg'l Multiple Listing Serv. (C.D. Cal. Oct. 16, 2026) (alleging defendant engaged in anticompetitive conduct that precluded sellers from marketing their properties outside of the MLS like in Compass, Inc. v. Nw. Multiple Listing Serv. (W.D. Wash. Apr. 25, 2025)
Ariz. Reg'l Multiple Listing Serv. v. Compass Inc. (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 21, 2026) (seeking a declaration that plaintiffs' enforcement of listing rules does not violate the antitrust laws as asserted in Compass's cease and desist letters like in Cal. Reg'l Multiple Listing Serv., Inc. v. Compass, Inc. (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 5, 2026))
Preister v. Tyson Foods, Inc. (D. Minn. Oct. 16, 2026) (new complaint filed in the In re Cattle & Beef Antitrust Litig. MDL)
Town of Mooresville v. REV Grp. (E.D. Wis. Oct. 19, 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))
Dispositive Orders and TROs
In re Turkey Antitrust Litig. (N.D. Ill. Oct. 19, 2026): In this case alleging a conspiracy to fix turkey prices in violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act, the court granted in part Cooper Farms’ and Tyson’s motions for summary judgment, granted Farbest’s, Raeford’s, and Agri Stats’ motions, and granted in part defendants’ joint motion. The court reasoned that (a) sufficient economic evidence and competitor communications concerning production cuts would permit a reasonable jury to find that Cooper Farms joined the per se conspiracy and that Tyson joined it beginning in 2012, but the evidence did not permit a reasonable jury to find that Farbest, which expanded production, Raeford, which exited the industry after sustained losses, or Agri Stats itself joined the agreement, (b) plaintiffs’ hub-and-spoke theory failed because the anonymized and aggregated Agri Stats reports did not establish that Agri Stats encouraged coordinated price increases or output restrictions or that processors agreed among themselves to use the reports for that purpose, and the rule-of-reason information-exchange claims failed because plaintiffs did not show that the Agri Stats reports caused substantial anticompetitive effects, and (c) the surviving claims were not barred at summary judgment because American Pipe tolling applied to Carina and Winn-Dixie and factual disputes remained over when they discovered or reasonably could have discovered the alleged conspiracy.
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania v. Colas Inc. (W.D. Pa. Oct. 19, 2026): In this case challenging Colas’s proposed acquisition of Suit-Kote on the basis that it would substantially lessen competition in local markets for the manufacture and sale of asphalt emulsions and the provision of pavement preservation services, the court entered a consent final order permitting the acquisition subject to divestitures and other remedial conditions, without any admission of liability. The order requires (a) divestiture to a single Pennsylvania-approved buyer of Colas’s Bloomsburg facility and Suit-Kote’s Belmont, Buffalo, and Jamestown facilities, together with the assets and personnel necessary to operate them as viable competitors, (b) Colas to build a new emulsion mill at Bloomsburg capable of producing at least four million gallons annually and, at the buyer’s option, provide up to $3.5 million in pavement-preservation equipment at each of the Bloomsburg and Belmont facilities, and (c) defendants to preserve the divested businesses, refrain from reacquiring the assets without approval, provide advance notice of certain Pennsylvania acquisitions for five years, and comply with ongoing monitoring and enforcement provisions designed to restore the competition allegedly threatened by the transaction.
In re Keurig Green Mountain Single-Serve Coffee Antitrust Litig. (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 20, 2026): In this case alleging Keurig engaged in monopolization and exclusionary conduct in the portion pack market resulting in supracompetitive prices for K-Cups, the court granted Keurig’s motion for summary judgment in part, while largely denying plaintiffs’ cross-motion. The court reasoned that (a) plaintiffs presented sufficient evidence of antitrust injury and Keurig’s durable monopoly power, and triable issues remained as to whether the Roaster Agreements unreasonably restrained trade under the rule of reason, whether the Supplier, Distributor, and Roaster Agreements collectively caused substantial foreclosure, and whether the Distributor Agreements unlawfully tied compatible cups to Keurig brewers, but plaintiffs failed to establish a per se or hub-and-spoke conspiracy among the roasters, (b) Keurig was entitled to summary judgment on claims based on the generally short-term and nonexclusive Retail Agreements, the 2.0 Brewer because consumers were not coerced to abandon the continued availability of 1.0 brewers, allegedly false advertising as monopolization conduct, the patent-infringement suits because they were not objectively baseless under Noerr-Pennington, patent misuse, and the early roaster acquisitions because plaintiffs lacked evidence that they eliminated meaningful nascent competitive threats, and (c) plaintiffs therefore could proceed to trial principally on their rule-of-reason conspiracy and exclusive-dealing claims involving the Roaster Agreements, exclusive-dealing claims involving the Supplier Agreements, and tying and exclusive-dealing claims involving the Distributor Agreements.
Faust v. Paramount Skydance Corp. (N.D. Cal. Oct. 21, 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 with leave to amend. The court reasoned that (a) the January 2026 Paramount+ price increase could not establish injury from the proposed Warner Bros. Discovery merger because it preceded that transaction, and plaintiffs still failed to plausibly connect the price increase to any reduction in competition caused by the earlier Skydance-Paramount merger, and (b) plaintiffs’ broader allegations that the mergers would cause higher prices, reduced output, diminished quality and variety, and fewer independent choices remained conclusory because merely placing competitors under common ownership does not itself establish a reasonable probability of anticompetitive effects or a concrete, particularized injury to plaintiffs.
Class Actions and Other Settlements
Connecticut v. Sandoz, Inc. (D. Conn. Oct. 16, 2026): In this case alleging an overarching conspiracy among manufacturers of dermatology generic drugs in violation of antitrust laws, the court granted preliminary approval of a $400 million settlement between the plaintiff states and Sandoz and Fougera Pharmaceuticals. The court preliminarily approved approximately $280 million for restitution, including approximately $172 million for eligible consumers, $100 million for state entities, and $7.844 million for eligible corporate entities in Idaho and Washington, with approximately $120 million allocated to settlement administration and litigation costs. The court approved the notice plan, appointed Rust Consulting as notice and claims administrator and Huntington Bank as escrow agent, and established procedures and deadlines for exclusions and objections. The court stayed proceedings against Sandoz and Fougera pending final approval and scheduled a final fairness hearing for January 19, 2027.
*** *** ***
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