Texas v. Epic Systems Corp.
Texas brought a lawsuit against Epic Systems Corporation, which sells electronic health record (“EHR”) database software and related applications to health care providers, in December 2025. The complaint alleges that Epic Systems has engaged in monopolistic conduct by preventing challenges to its EHR business in violations of the Texas Free Enterprise and Antitrust Act. The…
Texas et al. v. BlackRock et al.
Thirteen attorneys general brought an antitrust action against three institutional investors – BlackRock, State Street, and Vanguard Group. The lawsuit alleges that defendants used their acquisition of stock to reduce competition in coal markets in violation of Section 7 of the Clayton Act and state antitrust laws and that defendants agreed amongst themselves to reduce…
United States and Plaintiff States v. Live Nation Entertainment et al (S.D.N.Y. 1:24-CV-03973-AS)
Forty attorneys general joined the U.S. Department of Justice in a lawsuit against Live Nation Entertainment, Inc. and its subsidiary, Ticketmaster L.L.C. The lawsuit alleges that Live Nation has undertaken anticompetitive conduct in various markets across the live concert ecosystem to maintain its monopoly positions in the markets for primary ticketing services for major concert…
United States and Plaintiff States v. Agri Stats (D. Minn. 0:23-CV-03009-JRT-JFD)
Six attorneys general joined the U.S. Department of Justice in a lawsuit against Agri Stats. The lawsuit states that Agri Stats collects information from meat processors and creates and distributes comprehensive reports detailing competing processors’ pricing, margins, inventories, and operations. Plaintiffs allege that by providing this information only to processors – and not the processors’…
FTC and Plaintiff States v. Syngenta Crop Protection AG, No. 22-cv-828 (M.D. N.C. Nov. 2022)
The FTC and 10 states sued pesticide manufacturers Syngenta Crop Protection and Corteva, Inc. two of the largest pesticide manufacturers operating in the United States. For allegedly paying distributors to block competitors from selling their cheaper generic products to farmers. The complaint alleges that these big pesticide firms run so-called “loyalty programs” in which distributors…
Texas et al. v. Google (In re Google Digital Advertising Antitrust Litigation), No. 1:21-cv-06841 (S.D.N.Y.)
The plaintiff states originally filed their case in the Eastern District of Texas (No. 4:20-cv-00957 (E.D. Tex. Dec. 16, 2020) alleging that Google monopolized or attempted to monopolize products and services used by advertisers and publishers in online-display advertising on third-party sites. The complaint also alleged that Google engaged in false, misleading and deceptive acts…
United States and Plaintiff States v. Google, No. 1:20-cv-03010 (D.D.C. Oct. 20, 2020)
Eleven states and the U.S. Department of Justice filed a lawsuit to prevent Google from unlawfully maintaining monopolies through anticompetitive and exclusionary practices in the search and search advertising markets. According to the complaint, Google accounted for almost 90 percent of all search queries in the United States. Google has entered into a series of…
New York et al. v. Deutsche Telekom AG et al., No. 1:19-cv-5434 (S.D.N.Y.)
States challenged merger of T-Mobile and Sprint, the third and fourth-largest mobile telecommunications providers in the U.S., alleging that shrinking the national wireless carrier pool down from four to three providers would decrease competition and create higher prices for consumers. The US Department of Justice and seven states entered into a settlement with the parties…
Texas v. Your Therapy Source, LLC et al., No. D-1-GN-18-003887 (Travis Cty. Dist. Ct., 201st Dist. July 31, 2018)
The state alleged that the owners of two companies that provided professional therapists to home health agencies, including physical,occupational and speech therapists and therapist assistants, agreed to reduce the rate of pay for therapists and invited other competitors to collude on the rates. The FTC entered into a settlement with the companies. The state entered into a settlement with the companies that enjoined them from agreeing on rates with their competitors, exchanging rate information with their competitors,attempting to collude with any competitor on rates of pay for therapists. The companies were also required to submit compliance reports. the order is in effect for 20 years.
Texas v. Henry Schein, Inc., No. D-1-GN-17-003749, (Travis.Cty. Dist. Ct., 261st Judicial Dist. Aug. 3, 2017)
Plaintiff state reached a settlement with dental supply company concerning an illegal group boycott in the dental supply market. The settlement prohibits Henry Schein Dental from engaging in similar unlawful conduct. Texas settled a similar suit with Benco Dental Supply Company in 2015. The state’s antitrust action stemmed from a three-year investigation into allegations that Schein and two of its competitors worked together to thwart the entry of a lower-cost, online source of dental supplies provided by the Texas Dental Association (TDA). The state alleged that Schein and others colluded to discourage distributors and manufacturers from working with the TDA and its business partner, and agreed not to attend the TDA’s annual trade show in 2014.Under the settlement, Henry Schein Dental is prohibited from participating in anticompetitive activities in the future and must institute additional antitrust training for the company. Schein will pay $300,000 to reimburse the state for investigative costs and attorneys’ fees.
