On July 27, 2023, Judge William Shubb of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California denied the National Collegiate Athletic Association’s (NCAA) motion to dismiss a putative class action alleging in part that the NCAA and its member schools violated Section 1 of the Sherman Act by conspiring not to compensate coaches defined as volunteer coaches under NCAA regulations.  Smart v. NCAA, No. 22-cv-02125 (E.D. Cal. July 27, 2023).

On June 30, 2023, U.S. District Judge Thomas Durkin for the Northern District of Illinois partially granted defendants’ motion for summary judgment in a consolidated antitrust case alleging unlawful price-fixing in the broiler chicken industry.  In re Broiler Chicken Antitrust Litig., 1:16-cv-08637 (N.D. Ill. 2023).  Plaintiffs claim defendant broiler chicken producers raised the price of broiler chickens in violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act by unlawfully agreeing to reduce the supply of chicken between 2008 and 2009 and 2011 and 2012.  The Court granted summary judgment in favor of seven defendants but denied the motions by 11 other defendants and allowed those claims to proceed to trial, citing differences in the amount of evidence expressly involving each defendant.

On May 22, 2023, Judge Caproni of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York dismissed with prejudice a long-running litigation brought by plaintiff traders who in 2014 accused certain financial institutions of conspiring to periodically suppress a daily silver benchmark price set in London in violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act.  In re London Silver Fixing, Ltd., Antitrust Litigation, 2023 WL 3582198 (S.D.N.Y. May 22, 2023).  Plaintiffs had accused the financial institutions of manipulating silver prices from 2007 to 2013.

On March 23, 2023, the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington partially granted and partially denied Amazon’s motion to dismiss a putative consumer class action alleging Amazon’s policies have prevented third-party sellers from offering lower prices on other e-commerce platforms. Frame-Wilson, et al. v. Amazon.com, Inc., No. 2:20-cv-00424-RAJ, 2023 WL 2632513 (W.D. Wash. Mar. 23, 2023).

On March 7, 2023, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit vacated and remanded the lower court’s dismissal of Relevant Sports, LLC’s (“Plaintiff”) claim that United States Soccer Federation, Inc. (USSF) and Fédération Internationale de Football Association (FIFA) (“Defendants”) violated Section 1 of the Sherman Act’s prohibition on unreasonable restraints of trade. Relevant Sports, LLC v. United States Soccer Federation, Inc., 2023 WL 2375884 (2d Cir. Mar. 7, 2023). The Second Circuit held that where an association rule itself is the alleged anticompetitive agreement challenged, the existence of a binding association rule is sufficient direct evidence of concerted action to survive a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim under Section 1 of the Sherman Act. Plaintiff “need not allege an antecedent agreement to agree” to move forward on its antitrust claim.

On November 21, 2022, Judge Virginia Kendall of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois denied a motion to dismiss an antitrust lawsuit alleging that ten turkey product suppliers coordinated pricing and reduced output though direct communications, trade association meetings, and industry reports provided by co-defendant Agri Stats, Inc. In re Turkey Antitrust Litig., No. 19-8318 (N.D. Ill. Nov. 21, 2022). The Court had previously dismissed as implausible an initial, single-paragraph allegation of a per se violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act. The case proceeded, however, on plaintiffs’ separate allegations of improper exchanges of competitively sensitive information under the rule of reason. Over a year later and after completion of substantial discovery, plaintiffs amended their complaint to renew their per se claim. The motion to dismiss here only related to the per se violation. In denying the motion to dismiss, the Court ruled that plaintiffs’ complaint sufficiently alleged parallel conduct in the form of coordinated capacity reductions and price increases, as well as certain additional “plus factors” that could suggest an agreement among defendants.

On May 2, 2022, Judge Andrea R. Wood of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois granted a motion to dismiss a putative class action complaint brought by a plaintiff home buyer against the National Association of Realtors (“NAR”) and a number of residential real estate brokerages alleging that certain NAR rules governing real estate brokers’ dealings with home sellers violated of Section 1 of the Sherman Act.  Leeder v. The Nat’l Ass’n of Realtors, et al., No. 21-cv-00430, Dkt. No. 81 (N.D. Ill. May 2, 2022).  The Court held that, because the home buyer was not a direct purchaser of the brokerage services, which were the subject of a contract between the seller and the seller’s broker, his claim was barred under Illinois Brick Co. v. Illinois, 431 U.S. 720 (1977).

On March 7, 2022, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed the dismissal of claims that the three largest manufacturers of dynamic random-access memory (“DRAM”) conspired to artificially inflate prices by restricting supply.  In re DRAM Indirect Purchaser Antitrust Litigation, 21-15125 (9th Cir. Mar. 7, 2022).  Plaintiffs alleged that defendants conspired to simultaneously reduce the production of DRAM in order to drive up prices.  The United States District Court for the Northern District of California dismissed the claims because plaintiffs’ allegations did not rise to the level of plausibility required under Rule 12(b)(6).  The Ninth Circuit affirmed, holding that the facts as alleged were not sufficient to establish that defendants’ alleged conduct was the result of a “preceding agreement,” rather than conscious parallel behavior.

It is widely known that the evolution to online news has been challenging for print media sources, with some estimating that as much as half of all print revenue disappearing and one fifth of U.S. newspapers closing their doors since 2007.  In recent years, the House and Senate have focused on tech giants and the role these companies play in the lives of Americans and in a variety of markets, including digital advertising.  Following a long line of congressional hearings and committee investigations, a number of antitrust complaints have been filed by the Federal Trade Commission, the Department of Justice, and state Attorneys General across the country against major Big Tech companies like Facebook (now known as Meta Platforms, Inc.) and Google.  While some have been consolidated into multidistrict litigation, new cases continue to be filed by private plaintiffs.

On June 1, 2021, Judge Thomas Durkin of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois dismissed a complaint alleging that a bank conspired with other defendants in the poultry industry in violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act.  In re Broilers Chicken Antitrust Litig., 16-8637 (N.D. Ill. June 1, 2021).

On June 1, 2021, Judge Thomas M.  Durkin of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois granted defendant’s motion to dismiss price-fixing claims brought by a group of chicken buyers against a large bank operating in the agribusiness industry.  In re Broiler Chicken Antitrust Litigation, No. 16 C 8637 (N.D.  Ill.  June 1, 2021).

On March 10, 2021, Judge Stephanie Gallagher of the United States District Court for the District of Maryland denied defendants’ motions to dismiss antitrust claims brought by a putative class of poultry workers asserting that poultry processing companies unlawfully exchanged compensation data and conspired to fix and depress employee wages.  Jien v. Perdue Farms, Inc., No. 1:19-CV-2521-SAG (D. Md. March 10, 2021).
 

On November 17, 2020, Judge Troy Nunley of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California granted summary judgment for Comcast, dismissing claims brought by a cable installation subcontractor alleging that Comcast engaged in unlawful anticompetitive activity in violation of state antitrust laws.  Clear Connection Corp. v. Comcast Cable Commc’ns. Mgmt., LLC, No. 2:12-cv-02910-TLN-DB (E.D. Cal. Nov. 17, 2020).
 

On November 9, 2020, the United States District Court for the Central District of California granted defendant Outfront Media Inc.’s (“Outfront”) motion to dismiss claims that Outfront engaged in an illegal conspiracy to stifle competition and maintain “monopolistic control” over the alleged market for outdoor advertising (billboards) in Los Angeles.  Karraa v. City of Los Angeles, No. 2:20-cv-07036-SVW-AGR (C.D. Cal. Nov. 9, 2020).  The Court found that plaintiffs, including rival outdoor advertising company Virtual Media Group, Inc. (“VMG”) and the ground lessors of billboard sites, did not plead facts to establish a violation of either Section 1 or Section 2 of the Sherman Act.
 

On July 20, 2020, United States District Judge Valerie Caproni of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York dismissed antitrust claims brought by a soccer promoter against the United States Soccer Federation (“USSF”), which alleged that USSF entered into anticompetitive agreements to block plaintiff from hosting international soccer matches in the United States.  Relevent Sports, LLC v. United States Soccer Federation, Inc., No. 19-CV-8359 (S.D.N.Y. July 20, 2020).
 

On March 24, 2020, the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida granted defendants Burger King Worldwide, Inc., Burger King Corporation, Restaurant Brands International, Inc., and Restaurant Brands International Limited Partnership’s (“Burger King”) motion to dismiss plaintiffs’ claim that Burger King and its franchises colluded to limit employment options and suppress wages for franchise employees.  Jarvis Arrington et al. v. Burger King Worldwide, Inc., et al., No. 1:18-cv-24128 (S.D. Fla. 2020).  The Court dismissed plaintiffs’ claim because Burger King and its franchises are not independent entities for the purpose of § 1 of the Sherman Act and thus not capable of conspiring.
 

On March 5, 2020, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit vacated and remanded the Southern District of Illinois’ dismissal of a suit brought by healthcare providers against entities in the distribution chain for medical devices they purchased.  Marion Healthcare, LLC v. Becton Dickinson & Co., 18-3735 (7th Cir. Mar. 5, 2020).  Judge Diane P. Wood, writing for a unanimous panel, ruled that the district court erred in deciding that plaintiffs lacked antitrust standing to bring conspiracy claims under Section 1 of the Sherman Act.
 

On January 28, 2020, the United States District Court for the Southern District of California dismissed antitrust claims alleging that a private equity fund holding an ownership interest in Bumble Bee Foods LLC (“Bumble Bee”) participated in a conspiracy with major tuna companies to fix the prices of their packaged seafood products.  Judge Janis L. Sammartino granted defendants’ motion to dismiss claims against Lion Capital LLP (“Lion Capital”) and Big Catch Cayman LP (“Big Catch”) under FRCP 12(b)(6) with prejudice, determining that plaintiffs failed to state plausible claims for relief against these defendants under §1 of the Sherman Act.  In Re: Packaged Seafood Products Antitrust Litigation, 15-MD-2670 JLS (MDD) (S.D. Cal. Jan. 28, 2019).

On December 5, 2019, the Court of Appeals for the First District of Texas held that a movie theater chain presented sufficient evidence suggesting two national competitors conspired to prevent the chain’s entry to withstand summary judgment.  This ruling reversed the trial court’s decision, which granted summary judgment to the remaining defendant and dismissed antitrust restraint-of-trade claims.  iPic-Gold Class Entm’t LLC, et al. v. AMC Entm’t Holdings Inc., et al., No. 01-17-00805-CV (Tex. App. Dec. 5, 2019).  Justice Peter Kelly, writing for a unanimous panel, ruled that evidence of parallel actions by the two competitors and communication lines between them raised genuine issues of material fact as to the existence of a conspiracy in violation of The Texas Free Enterprise and Antitrust Act (“TFEAA”). 

On November 25, 2019, Judge Anita Brody of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania issued an order granting in part, and denying in part, defendants’ motion to dismiss claims alleging Jiffy Lube’s (the “Company’s”) franchise agreements included no-poach provisions that violate Section One of the Sherman Act.  Fuentes v. Royal Dutch Shell PLC, et al., 18-cv-05174 (E.D. Pa. Nov. 25, 2019).  Plaintiffs alleged that requests to be transferred between the Company franchisees in Florida and Pennsylvania were denied because of no-poach clauses that prevented franchisees from hiring other franchisees’ employees while they were working at the Company and for six months following the end of their employment.  According to plaintiffs, the no-poach provision in the Company’s franchising agreements suppressed wages, inhibited employment mobility and lessened professional work opportunities.   
 

On October 4, 2019, District Judge Edgardo Ramos of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York dismissed a putative antitrust class action against certain defendants, foreign banks, and individuals for lack of personal jurisdiction and improper venue.  In re SSA Bonds Antitrust Litig., No. 16 CIV. 3711 (ER) 2019 WL 4917608 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 4, 2019).  Plaintiffs alleged that the defendant financial institutions and certain employees operating as dealers in the U.S. dollar SSA bond market conspired to fix the price of SSA bonds in violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act.  Several dealer defendants (the “Foreign Dealer Defendants”) and four of their employees (the “Individual Defendants”) moved to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction and venue.  The Court granted the motion, finding that plaintiffs had not satisfied the venue provision of the Clayton Act because plaintiffs failed to show that the Foreign Dealer Defendants transacted business of a “substantial character” in New York and failed to establish a nexus for purposes of personal jurisdiction “between the alleged business transactions in New York and the claims of this antitrust case.” 
 

On October 8, 2019, United States District Judge for the Southern District of New York Ronnie Abrams dismissed all but one claim in a putative antitrust class action brought against Takeda Pharmaceutical Company Ltd. and various Takeda entities, as well as generic manufacturers Teva Pharmaceuticals, Ranbaxy Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd., Actavis PLC, and Mylan Inc.  In re: Actos Direct Purchaser Antitrust Litigation, No. 1:15-cv-03278 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 8, 2019).  The class complaint alleged that Takeda illegally conspired with the other defendants to delay generic competition for its blockbuster diabetes drug Actos through a series of patent settlement agreements, which granted the other defendants non-exclusive licenses to produce generic Actos at a future date prior to the expiration of Takeda’s patents.  The Court dismissed these conspiracy claims, finding that plaintiffs’ “truly novel” theory for why the settlement agreements between Takeda and the other defendants violated the antitrust laws lacked “even a colorable basis” of support.  The Court’s decision left in place one remaining claim against Takeda for monopolization.
 

On September 5, 2019, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit affirmed a decision by the Northern District of Illinois dismissing Illinois state antitrust claims brought by a bankruptcy creditor against the bankruptcy trustee’s software services provider.  McGarry & McGarry, LLC v. Bankr. Mgt. Sols., Inc., 18-2619, 2019 WL 4197546 (7th Cir. Sept. 5, 2019).  Plaintiff alleged that defendant entered into a price-fixing conspiracy with other bankruptcy software providers.  Judge Diane S. Sykes, writing for a unanimous panel, ruled that plaintiff lacked antitrust standing because it did not meaningfully participate in the relevant market for bankruptcy software services and, accordingly, its alleged injury was too remote from the claimed price-fixing violation. 

On September 30, 2019, Judge Paul Oetken of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York dismissed claims that defendants, a group of ten financial institutions and related entities, had conspired to manipulate the market for certain debt securities issued by the Mexican government.  In re Mexican Government Bonds Antitrust Litigation, 18-CV-2830 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 30, 2019).  Plaintiffs, a group of pension funds, alleged that defendants rigged the auction process used by the Mexican government to issue bonds and conspired to manipulate the pricing of the bonds on the secondary market, in violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act.  According to plaintiffs, the conspiracy artificially depressed auction prices, artificially inflated secondary market prices, and fixed bid-ask spreads, resulting in harm to the pension funds in the United States. 

On September 5, 2019, Judge Kenneth Ripple, writing for a unanimous panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, partially reversed a lower court’s dismissal of antitrust claims alleging that two brewers conspired to restrict a competitor’s exports of beer to Ontario, Canada.  Mountain Crest SRL, LLC v. Anheuser-Busch InBev SA/NV, No. 18-2327, 2019 WL 4198809 (7th Cir. Sept. 5, 2019).  The Seventh Circuit held that agreements with a Canadian government-controlled entity (the Liquor Control Board of Ontario, or “LCBO”) were immune from antitrust scrutiny under the act of state doctrine.  However, the Court held that claims of an alleged conspiracy between competitors to strong-arm the LCBO into entering into the agreements did not implicate the act of state doctrine and were improperly dismissed. 

On August 27, 2019, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals vacated a grant of summary judgment by the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, which had dismissed the claims of a group of aluminum buyers on grounds they did not have standing in an antitrust suit alleging a conspiracy to artificially inflate aluminum prices.  Judge Pierre N. Leval, writing for the panel, disagreed with the District Court’s dismissal, ruled that plaintiffs had adequately pleaded antitrust injury, and remanded the case for further proceedings. Eastman Kodak Co. v. Henry Bath LLC, 16-4230, 2019 WL 4018285 (2d Cir. Aug. 27, 2019).

On July 30, 2019, U.S. District Court Judge Janis Sammartino of the Southern District of California certified three separate classes of tuna purchasers alleging price-fixing by producers of packaged tuna:  (1) direct-purchaser plaintiffs, (2) commercial-food-preparer plaintiffs, and (3) end-payer plaintiffs.  In re Packaged Seafood Products Antitrust Litigation, No. 15-MD-2670, July 30, 2019.

On July 15, 2019, the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals dismissed claims alleging an antitrust conspiracy between a local municipality, an intergovernmental cooperation association and a private provider of commercial fire-alarm services.  Alarm Detection Sys., Inc. v. Vill. of Schaumburg, No. 18-3316, 2019 WL 3071744 (7th Cir. July 15, 2019).  The Court held that plaintiffs failed to plausibly plead the existence of an underlying agreement between defendants as required to plead an antitrust conspiracy claim.

On June 26, 2019, Judge Cynthia M. Rufe of the Eastern District of Pennsylvania dismissed claims that McKesson Corporation and McKesson Medical Surgical, Inc. (collectively the “Company”) engaged in a conspiracy to fix prices of generic pharmaceuticals.  Marion Diagnostic Center, LLC, et al.  v. McKesson Corporation, et al., No.  16-MD-2724 (June 26, 2019).  The Court held that the plaintiffs had not plausibly alleged that the Company’s conduct as a generic drug distributor was the result of an agreement with co-defendant generic drug manufacturers. 

On June 20, 2019, Judge Joy Flowers Conti of the Western District of Pennsylvania dismissed plaintiffs’ class claims that defendant employers colluded to suppress market wages by agreeing not to hire each other’s employees.  The Court found that the complaint failed to adequately plead that all or nearly all employees in the proposed class were harmed by the alleged collusion.  In re Railway Industry Employee No-Poach Antitrust Litigation, No. 18-798 (W.D. Pa. June 20, 2019).  The Court, however, acknowledged plaintiffs had sufficiently pled the existence of an overarching conspiracy among defendants from 2014 to 2016 and individual agreements among each of the three defendants beginning at different times since 2009.  Since the class claims were dismissed without prejudice, plaintiffs have the opportunity to remedy their class-related pleading defects. 

On April 30, 2019, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals, in a panel consisting of Judges Rosemary S. Pooler, Denny Chin, and Eric N. Vitaliano, affirmed a decision by Judge Paul G. Gardephe of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York denying plaintiff’s request for leave to amend its complaint alleging that various banks conspired to manipulate LIBOR.  7 West 57^th Street Realty Company, LLC v. Citigroup, Inc., 18-1102-cv (2d Cir. April 30, 2019).  The Court agreed with Judge Gardephe that plaintiff, the successor in interest to a real estate developer, lacked antitrust standing to bring suit because it was not an efficient enforcer and that amending the complaint would be futile.  The Court also agreed that plaintiff did not allege facts sufficient to state a claim under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (“RICO”).
 

On April 19, 2019, the Third Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the Middle District of Pennsylvania’s dismissal of monopsony, antitrust conspiracy, and race discrimination claims by two plaintiff cable installer contractors against defendant, a dominant provider of internet services.  Cable Line, Inc. v. Comcast Cable Communications of Pennsylvania, Inc., No. 18-2316 (3d Cir. Apr. 19, 2019).  On the antitrust claims, the Third Circuit held that plaintiffs did not adequately allege facts to show that they suffered antitrust injury from the allegedly anticompetitive conduct, that defendant held monopsony power and used it to exclude other buyers of cable installation services, or that defendant had any agreement with the installers it chose as part of its RFP process to restrain trade in the cable installation market.  The Third Circuit did, however, suggest that plaintiffs consider a retooled complaint alleging that defendant ties cable installation to its cable services, which may cause higher installation prices and reduce downstream competition.

On March 29, 2019, Judge Edward J. Davila of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California denied a motion to dismiss, finding that plaintiff Orion Telescopes & Binoculars (“Orion”) had sufficiently pled that defendants Ningbo Sunny Electronic Co., Ltd. (“Ningbo”) and Celestron, LLC (“Celestron”) had conspired to divide the market for low- to medium-end telescopes and block a competing manufacturer’s acquisition that would have enabled expansion and broader supply-side competition.  Optronic Technologies, Inc., v. Ningbo Sunny Electronic Co., Ltd., No. 16-CV-6370 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 29, 2019).  Judge Davila cited plaintiff’s specific allegations of:  (a) a division among competitors of the low-end (to Ningbo) and high-end (to Celestron) telescope markets (facilitated in part by a transfer of intellectual property to Ningbo); and (b) Celestron’s advance knowledge of Ningbo’s interest in the merger.  Celestron settled prior to the litigation, but Orion and Ningbo will continue into discovery.

On February 21, 2019, Judge David Sam of the U.S. District Court for the District of Utah reversed course and found that a per se standard applies to a market allocation agreement among competitors in the heir location services market. Judge Sam initially found that the more lenient rule of reason standard should apply. However, following a recent Tenth Circuit ruling, Judge Sam held it is the form of the agreement—not the type of industry—that compels the appropriate standard of review. United States of America, v. Kemp & Associates, Inc. and Daniel J. Mannix, No. 2:16CR403 DS, 2019 WL 763796 (D. Utah Feb. 21, 2019).

On January 7, 2019, Judge Jeffrey S. White of the Northern District of California ruled on a motion to dismiss allegations that certain high-end restaurant groups in New York and California had conspired to terminate the practice of tipping in restaurants, in violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act and various state laws.  Judge White held that plaintiff’s claims were too speculative to sustain an inference that defendants could — or had any reason to — conspire, and dismissed all claims.  Brown v. 140 NM LLC et al., No. 4:17-cv-05782 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 7, 2019).

On December 7, 2018, the United Stated Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, in an opinion by Chief Judge Diane P. Wood, affirmed a district court’s decision to grant summary judgment in favor of two defendants remaining in a class action alleging price-fixing by manufacturers of containerboard.  Kleen Products LLC, et al. v. Georgia-Pacific LLC, et al., No. 17-2808 (7th Cir. Dec. 7, 2018).  The Court rejected plaintiffs’ contention that the existence of an anticompetitive agreement between manufacturers could be inferred based primarily on allegedly correlated price increases and reductions in supply.

On November 28, 2018, Judge Marco A. Hernández of the United States District Court for the District of Oregon, on remand from the Ninth Circuit, reversed its prior grant of a motion to dismiss and held that plaintiff — which brought antitrust conspiracy claims against a non-profit corporation made up of 549 member colleges — sufficiently demonstrated antitrust injury by alleging harm to the member colleges.  CollegeNET, Inc. v. The Common Application, Inc., No. 3:14-CV-00771-HZ (D. Or. Nov. 28, 2018).

On November 13, 2018, Judge Robert J. Bryan of the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington denied a motion to dismiss a class action complaint by a former fast-food worker alleging that the company’s agreement to prohibit the re-hiring of one franchisee’s employees by another franchisee violates the Sherman Antitrust Act.  Yi v. SK Bakeries LLC, et al., No. 3:18-cv-05627, Dkt. No. 33 (W.D. Wa. Nov. 13, 2018).  Judge Bryan did, however, caution plaintiff against relying solely on a “quick look” theory, and suggested that whether franchisees are, in fact, a “single entity” incapable of conspiring with one another is a fact-specific question that did not merit a pleading-stage dismissal.
 

 

On October 4, 2018, Judge Alvin K. Hellerstein of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York dismissed, with prejudice, claims that certain banks engaged in an industry-wide conspiracy to manipulate various Singapore financial benchmarks in violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act, while simultaneously ruling that claims against other defendants that were involved in setting the benchmark could proceed.  The Court also found that it did not have jurisdiction over defendant banks that were not members of the panel that set the financial benchmark at issue, and therefore dismissed plaintiffs’ claims against those defendants.  Frontpoint Asian Event Driven Fund v. Citibank, 16 Civ. 5263 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 4, 2018).

On July 31, 2018, Judge Michael J. Reagan of the United States District Court for the Southern District of Illinois granted in part and denied in part defendant-franchisor’s motion to dismiss an antitrust claim filed by a purported class of former employees of defendant’s franchisees.  Butler v. Jimmy John’s Franchise, LLC, No. 18-CV-0133-MJR-RJD, 2018 WL 3631577 (S.D. Ill. July 31, 2018).  Plaintiffs alleged that provisions included in defendant’s franchise agreements with its franchisees in which the franchisees agreed not to hire each other’s employees—commonly known as “no-poach” agreements—violated Section 1 of the Sherman Act and various state antitrust laws by suppressing employee wages and mobility in the labor market.  Defendants moved to dismiss all claims, arguing that plaintiffs failed to allege an injury that would confer Article III standing, and that plaintiffs failed to plausibly allege an antitrust conspiracy under Section 1 of the Sherman Act.

On July 25, 2018, Judge Valerie E. Caproni of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York dismissed with prejudice claims that certain banks participated in a conspiracy to (a) manipulate the London Silver Fixing, and (b) engage in manipulation of silver spot markets and futures markets in violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act. The Court held that plaintiffs failed to plausibly allege that these banks—which did not participate in the London Silver Fixing—were part of the alleged conspiracy to manipulate that benchmark. The Court also dismissed other conspiracy claims on antitrust standing grounds, based on the remoteness of the injuries allegedly suffered by plaintiffs and the dangers of disproportionate recovery that this remoteness would present. The Court also dismissed claims that the alleged conduct violated the Commodity Exchange Act (“CEA”) and justified recovery under an unjust enrichment theory.
 

On July 16, 2018, in the latest development in the litigation over the “reverse payment” settlements relating to the pharmaceutical testosterone replacement AndroGel that the Supreme Court addressed in FTC v. Actavis, Inc., 570 U.S. 136 (2013), Judge Thomas W. Thrash, Jr. of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia denied class certification to a proposed class of direct purchaser plaintiffs. In re AndroGel Antitrust Litigation (No. II), No. 2084, 2018 WL 3424612 (N.D. Ga. July 15, 2018). 

On June 14, 2018, a jury in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania found three egg producers not liable for violating Section 1 of the Sherman Act based on an alleged conspiracy to restrict the supply of egg-laying hens and artificially inflate the price of eggs. In re Processed Eggs Prods. Antitrust Litig., 2:08-md-02002 (E.D. Pa. June 14, 2018).

On May 17, 2018, Judge Tena Campbell of the United States District Court for the District of Utah denied three leading contact lens retailer defendants’ motion to dismiss a putative class action complaint alleging violations of Section 1 of the Sherman Act.  J. Thompson, et al. v. 1-800 Contacts, et al., Case No. 2:16-CV-1183-TC (D. Utah May 17, 2018).  Plaintiffs, who purchased contact lenses online from defendants, alleged that they paid artificially-inflated prices for those contact lenses due to defendants’ anticompetitive trademark litigation settlement agreements.  Defendants moved to dismiss the claims because the plaintiffs lacked antitrust standing, failed to properly plead a relevant product market, did not allege a single overarching conspiracy, and with respect to damages claims prior to 2012, failed to file a lawsuit within the Clayton Act’s four-year statute of limitations.

Read more

On May 7, 2018, Judge Charles Breyer of the United States District Court for the Northern District of California affirmed that volume of commerce (“VOC”) is a necessary factor in determining the appropriate sentence for criminal antitrust convictions.  This represents a reversal from his earlier comments at an April 26, 2018 hearing, where Judge Breyer said he would ignore the VOC in sentencing 23 individuals for their roles in a conspiracy to rig bids at public real estate foreclosure auctions. 

Read more

On April 19, 2018, Judge Beth L. Freeman of the United States District Court for the Northern District of California denied defendants’ motion to dismiss antitrust claims under Sections 1 and 2 of the Sherman Act, rejecting defense arguments that the complaint alleged no more than permissible unilateral conduct by a legitimate joint venture. 

Read more

On April 13, 2018, Judge Brian M. Cogan of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York denied defendants’—two leading dental supply distributors—motions for summary judgement.  Plaintiff SourceOne, a nascent competitor in the dental supply distribution market, partnered with the Texas Dental Association (TDA) to launch an online marketplace in competition with the larger distributors, including defendants.  Plaintiff alleged that the two defendants and a third leading dental supply distributor (who settled early in the case), which collectively controlled 80 percent of the dental supply distribution in the United States, conspired to boycott the TDA and Arizona Dental Association trade shows in an effort to harm plaintiff. 

Read more

On February 23, 2018, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit vacated portions of Judge Buchwald’s 2015 opinion that had dismissed claims brought by Charles Schwab Corp. and affiliates against over a dozen banks alleged to have manipulated U.S. Dollar LIBOR for lack of personal jurisdiction for state-law claims and a failure to link the alleged manipulation to damages for Securities Exchange Act claims.  Charles Schwab Corp., et al. v. Bank of America Corp., et al., 16-1189-cv (2d Cir. Feb. 23, 2018).  Schwab had been among the many plaintiffs to pursue claims against LIBOR panel banks under the antitrust laws, but—while the dismissal of those claims was pending appeal before the Second Circuit—Schwab initiated a parallel action against LIBOR panel banks, alleging California common law fraud and unjust enrichment claims, statutory claims under California’s Business and Professions Code, and claims under the Securities Exchange Act.  The district court dismissed the complaint in its entirety, holding that (i) personal jurisdiction was lacking for the state law claims because the alleged manipulation took place outside of the U.S.; and (ii) the complaint failed to allege facts in support of a Securities Exchange Act claim because it failed to connect the suppression of LIBOR to any damages suffered by Schwab.  In re LIBOR-based Financial Instruments Antitrust Litig., 2015 WL 6243526, *70 (Oct. 20, 2015 S.D.N.Y.).  The Second Circuit vacated these rulings, directing the district court to grant Schwab leave to amend its complaint to address a number of issues identified in the opinion. 

Read more

On January 9, 2018, Judge William J. Martini of the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey dismissed with prejudice a putative class action brought by a purchaser of Jaguar vehicles against Jaguar Land Rover North America LLC, Jaguar Land Rover Limited (collectively, the “manufacturer defendants”), their dealers, and a third-party consulting company.  Baar v. Jaguar Land Rover North Am., LLC, et al., No. 2:17-04142 (D.N.J. Jan. 9, 2018).  Plaintiff alleged that defendants unreasonably restrained trade by implementing and enforcing a no-export agreement that prohibited purchasers from reselling Jaguar’s vehicles abroad for at least one year.  The Court held that the plaintiff’s complaint failed to state a violation of federal or state antitrust laws because it did not adequately allege (1) concerted action among the defendants, or (2) that Jaguar’s no-export policy produced anticompetitive effects within a cognizable antitrust product and geographic market.

Read more

On December 7, 2017, Magistrate Judge Laurel Beeler of the United States District Court for the Northern District of California dismissed a conspiracy to monopolize claim brought by two local hospital operators against Kaiser Foundation Health Plan, Inc., Kaiser Foundation Hospitals, Inc., and Permanente Medical Group, Inc.  Northbay Healthcare Grp., Inc., et al. v. Kaiser Found. Health Plan, Inc., et al., No. 17-cv-05005-LB, 2017 WL 6059299 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 7, 2017).  The plaintiffs, who operate two hospitals in Solano County, California, alleged that defendants conspired to monopolize the healthcare insurance and services market in Solano County by (1) terminating their rate agreements with plaintiffs, and (2) steering patients to or away from defendants’ hospital emergency rooms based on the defendants’ financial incentives.  The Court dismissed the complaint, holding that plaintiffs did not adequately allege (1) a combination or conspiracy to monopolize, (2) specific intent to monopolize, or (3) a causal antitrust injury.  Finding these elements lacking, the Court did not address whether plaintiffs alleged an overt act in furtherance of the alleged conspiracy, the fourth element of the claim. 

Read more