In In re Outpatient Medical Center Employee Antitrust Litigation, 2026 WL 1678954,the Northern District of Illinois recently refused to certify a proposed class of healthcare employees who alleged that their employers entered into a “no-poach agreement” that prohibited them from recruiting each other’s senior-level personnel and thereby suppressed compensation for all employees with similar qualifications. After excluding the plaintiffs’ expert’s statistical analysis of employee compensation under Rule 702, the Court determined that plaintiffs’ remaining non-statistical evidence did not show common proof of classwide antitrust impact.
Continue Reading Non-Statistical Evidence in No-Poach Antitrust Litigation Not Enough to Certify Class, Says Illinois Court
Aggregate Damages Model, List Prices Insufficient to Demonstrate Classwide Antitrust Injury, Says Federal District Court
Last month in In re: Keurig Green Mountain Single-Serve Coffee Antitrust Litigation, the Southern District of New York denied certification to a proposed class of direct purchasers who alleged that Keurig, a manufacturer of branded coffee pods and brewers, violated antitrust laws by allegedly suppressing competition from generic coffee pod manufacturers. Although the plaintiffs offered statistical evidence suggesting that Keurig’s coffee pod prices were elevated on average, the court held that individual issues of antitrust impact predominated over common questions because Keurig directly negotiated prices with large buyers that might fully offset any increase in average prices.
Continue Reading Aggregate Damages Model, List Prices Insufficient to Demonstrate Classwide Antitrust Injury, Says Federal District CourtCalifornia Court Rejects First Algorithmic Price Fixing Case to Reach Summary Judgment
On October 20, a California trial court granted summary judgment in favor of defendants in Mach v. Yardi Systems, Inc., rejecting class plaintiffs’ claims that defendants violated California’s antitrust law, the Cartwright Act, through their common use of rental pricing software. The decision, which relied on “critical” evidence produced
Continue Reading California Court Rejects First Algorithmic Price Fixing Case to Reach Summary JudgmentNinth Circuit Rejects Vegas Hotel Algorithmic Price Fixing Claims
On August 15, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissal of a class action complaint in Gibson v. Cendyn Group, No. 24-3576, rejecting plaintiffs’ arguments that Las Vegas hotels violated Section 1 of the Sherman Act through their common use of revenue management software. The decision follows
Continue Reading Ninth Circuit Rejects Vegas Hotel Algorithmic Price Fixing ClaimsCourt Finds Homebuyers Lack Antitrust Standing to Challenge Real Estate Brokerage Commission Rules
In Lutz v. HomeServices of America, Inc. et al., No. 4:24-cv-10040-KMM, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida dismissed antitrust claims brought by a proposed class of homebuyers seeking to enjoin implementation of rules promulgated by the National Association of Realtors (NAR) relating to commissions paid to real estate brokers representing homebuyers.
Continue Reading Court Finds Homebuyers Lack Antitrust Standing to Challenge Real Estate Brokerage Commission RulesCalifornia Court Dismisses Hotel Algorithmic Price Fixing Claims
Last month, a California federal court in Dai v. SAS Institute, No. 4:24-cv-02537 (N.D. Cal. 2025), dismissed a proposed antitrust class action complaint against six nationwide hotel operators alleging that the hotels’ common use of revenue management software to set their room prices amounted to a per se illegal “hub-and-spoke” conspiracy to fix hotel prices in violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act.
Continue Reading California Court Dismisses Hotel Algorithmic Price Fixing ClaimsCourt Dismisses Homebuyers’ Trade Association Horizontal Conspiracy Claim
The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania recently dismissed a horizontal antitrust conspiracy claim brought by a proposed class of homebuyers against a real estate brokerage company, while allowing the homebuyers’ claims based upon vertical agreements to continue.
Continue Reading Court Dismisses Homebuyers’ Trade Association Horizontal Conspiracy ClaimClaims that Drug Manufacturer Paid PBMs to Disrupt Operation of State Generic Substitution Laws not Viable, Says Illinois Court
On June 25, an Illinois federal court dismissed an antitrust class action that alleged that branded drug manufacturer Biogen harmed competition by paying Pharmacy Benefit Managers (“PBMs”) not to promote generic alternatives to its treatment for multiple sclerosis, Tecfidera. In re Tecfidera Antitrust Litigation, No. 24-cv-7387, 2025 WL 1755725 (N.D. Ill. June 25, 2025).
Continue Reading Claims that Drug Manufacturer Paid PBMs to Disrupt Operation of State Generic Substitution Laws not Viable, Says Illinois CourtNew Jersey Court Dismisses Software Price-Fixing Claims Against Atlantic City Casinos
On September 30, a New Jersey federal court dismissed with prejudice an antitrust class action complaint alleging that several Atlantic City hotel operators engaged in a per se illegal “hub-and-spoke” price-fixing conspiracy through their use of software algorithms to set room rental rates. Cornish-Adebiyi v. Caesars Entertainment, No. 1:23-CV-02536 (D.N.J.).
According to the court, class plaintiffs’ allegations concerning Atlantic City hoteliers suffered from the “same factual deficiencies identified” by a Nevada federal court in Gibson v. Cendyn Group, No. 2:23-cv-00140 (D. Nev.), which rejected price-fixing allegations arising from Las Vegas hotels’ use of the same software. The court concluded that, in both cases, plaintiffs failed to plausibly allege the existence of unlawful agreements between the hotels at the “rim” of the alleged “hub-and-spoke” price-fixing conspiracy for several reasons.
Continue Reading New Jersey Court Dismisses Software Price-Fixing Claims Against Atlantic City CasinosPost-Class Period Statistics Alone Cannot Demonstrate Parallel Conduct in Antitrust Action, SDNY Holds
In Ohio Carpenters’ Pension Fund v. Deutsche Bank AG, no. 22-cv-10462-ER (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 26, 2024), the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York dismissed an antitrust class action alleging a conspiracy between Deutsche Bank and Rabobank to manipulate prices of European government bonds. Plaintiffs, certain U.S.-based pension funds, alleged that the defendants manipulated the prices they offered to investors to buy or sell EGBs in order to widen the resulting “bid-ask spread” between those prices and increase their profits.
Continue Reading Post-Class Period Statistics Alone Cannot Demonstrate Parallel Conduct in Antitrust Action, SDNY Holds