United States and Ohio v. OhioHealth Corp.
Ohio and the United States Department of Justice filed a complaint against OhioHealth Corporation in February 2026. The complaint states that OhioHealth is the dominant hospital system in Columbus and alleges its market power comes from its size, the location of its facilities, and its control of rural hospitals that insurers need to include in…
Ohio v. Ascend Wellness Holdings, Inc., et al.
Ohio brought a lawsuit against nine multistate cannabis operators (“MSOs”) in February 2026. The complaint states that MSOs are often vertically-integrated companies across the cultivation, processing and dispensing supply chain to distribute their branded products within a state. The complaint alleges the defendants have conspired to form cartels which limit the availability of independent Ohio…
Ohio et al. v. National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA), No. 1:23-cv-00100 (N.D. W.V. Dec. 7, 2023)
Seven plaintiff states filed suit against the NCAA in 2023, alleging that the NCAA’s transfer eligibility rule is an illegal restraint on college athletes’ ability to market their labor and control their education. The rule requires college athletes who transfer among Division 1 schools to wait one year before competing in games, unless they obtain…
New York et al. v. Meta (originally Facebook Inc.), No. 20-3589 (D.D.C.)
Forty-eight plaintiff states filed a lawsuit against Facebook Inc., alleging that the company harms the public by illegally stifling competition to protect its monopoly power. The states alleged that, over the last decade, the social networking giant illegally acquired competitors in a predatory manner and cut services to smaller firms that threatened its power, depriving…
Settlement Agreement Between Plaintiff States and Citibank (June 2018)
Forty-two plaintiff states reached a $100 million settlement with Citibank for fraudulent conduct involving interest rate manipulation that had a significant impact on consumers and financial markets around the world. UBS’ fraudulent conduct involved the manipulation of LIBOR (the London Interbank Offered Rate). LIBOR is a benchmark interest rate that affects financial instruments worth trillions…
Alabama et al. v. Endo International, No. 3:19-cv-04157 (N.D. Cal. July 19, 2019)
Eighteen states reached a settlement with Endo Pharmaceuticals Inc. under which Endo paid $2.3 million to settle allegations it entered into a reverse-payment agreement to obstruct generic competition to Lidoderm, a pain relief patch frequently used to treat shingles. According to the complaint, Endo had an agreement with Watson Laboratories Inc. ensuring Endo would not face…
People of Ohio v. Quattro
In the first case in nearly three decades involving criminal antitrust charges under Ohio’s Valentine Act, a supplier of traffic control devices pleaded guilty to two felony counts in connection with bids submitted to the Ohio Department of Transportation (ODOT). Quattro, Inc. pleaded guilty to one count of entering into an unlawful combination, contract, or agreement with the intent to limit or fix the price and one count of attempting to engage in a pattern of corrupt activity. Quattro submitted multiple quotes from itself and several related companies to meet ODOT’s required number of quotes and give an appearance of competition. Quattro also worked with an unnamed co-conspirator to submit prearranged quotes for traffic control devices. Quattro paid $32,800 in restitution to ODOT and $10,000 to the state, and agreed to continue cooperating with the investigation.
California et al. v. Teikoku Seikayu Co.(Lidoderm), No. 3:18-cv-00675 (N.D. Cal. 01/31/18)
Plaintiff states alleged that defendant, the producer of Lidoderm (pain medication), paid or incentivized generic drug makers to delay entry into market to protect its monopoly on Lidoderm. (“pay for delay”) The settlement agreement, which expires in twenty years, prohibits Teikoku from entering into agreements that restrict generic drug manufacturers from researching, manufacturing, marketing, or selling products for a period of time and requires Teikoku to cooperate in an ongoing investigation into similarly anticompetitive conduct by other drug manufacturers, among other things.
State of Wisconsin et al. v. Indivior, No. 16-5073 (E.D. Pa. Sept. 22,2016)
Plaintiff states alleged that the makers of Suboxone, a drug used to treat opioid addiction, engaged in a scheme to block generic competitors and raise prices. Specifically, they are conspiring to wtich Suboxone from a tablet version to a flim in order to prevent or delay generic entry. The states allege that the manufacturers engaged in “product hopping” in which a company makes slight changes to its product to extend patent protections and prvent generic alternatives. The complaint was filed under seal.
In the Matter of NFL Ticketing Investigation, Assurance No. 16-181(NY Attorney General Antitrust Bureau (Nov. 15, 2016)
Plaintiff states entered into a settlement agreement with the National Football League under which the NFL would discontinue its league-wide mandatory price floor (no tickets could be sold on the NFL secondary market platform for a price less than a season ticket holder’s price) and would not direct or require ticketing practices designed to preclude fans from using competing ticket exchanges.
