Antitrust

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 Court

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 Judgment

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 Claims

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 Rules

Expert evidence commonly plays an important role in class certification determinations.  On August 5, the Seventh Circuit addressed this issue, holding that in a proposed antitrust class action, the district court erred in certifying a class when it failed to engage with conflicting expert evidence regarding antitrust impact that could have established lack of predominance.        

The case, Arandell Corp. v. Xcel Energy Inc., — F.4th —, 2025 WL 2218111 (7th Cir. 2025) was a long-running natural gas price fixing case.  Plaintiffs moved to certify a Rule 23(b)(3) class.  They argued that common questions of law or fact predominated, including “whether the class paid higher prices for natural gas[.]”  Id. at *4.  Plaintiffs and defendants had competing experts on the predominance issue as it related to impact.  Id. Continue Reading District Courts Must Address Conflicting Expert Evidence to Certify Antitrust Class Action, Seventh Circuit Rules

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 Claims

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 Claim

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 Court

The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida recently dismissed an antitrust class action brought by yacht sellers against yacht brokers, brokerage trade associations, and multiple listing services for preowned yachts.  In Ya Mon Expeditions LLC v. International Yacht Brokers Association Inc., 1:24-cv-20805, the yacht sellers alleged that yacht brokers conspired through trade associations to fix uniform brokerage commissions on preowned yacht sales and exclude from yacht listing services sellers who were not represented by licensed brokers.Continue Reading Court Takes Wind Out of the Sails of Yacht Sellers’ Antitrust Suit

In certain circumstances and states, class action waivers may mitigate the exposure risks inherent in class action lawsuits. A decision from the Eastern District of New York illustrates some of the procedural challenges defendants may face in seeking to enforce a waiver at the outset of a case in some circumstances. See Berger v. JetBlue Airways Corp., 2024 WL 4107243, at *4 (E.D.N.Y. Sept. 6, 2024).Continue Reading New York Federal Court Declines to Find Class Claims Waived at Pleadings Stage