Inside Competition: August 2026

Inside Competition is designed to help companies identify important legal developments in antitrust and competition law in the United States.

In addition to reporting on antitrust litigation and enforcement actions over the previous month, this bulletin will address policy developments, regulatory trends, and agency priorities shaping competition law today.

Our goal is to provide insights that help businesses identify risk, respond to investigations, and compete in a rapidly evolving legal landscape.

Civil litigation

Division I athletes bring antitrust challenge to NCAA’s exclusion of the Class of 2022 from new eligibility rule. In Wisne et al. v. NCAA, No. 1:26-cv-03063 (D. Colo.), 12 Division I athletes from the high school class of 2022 filed a putative class action and moved for a temporary restraining order or preliminary injunction, alleging that the NCAA’s new Five-Year Eligibility Rule violates Section 1 of the Sherman Act. Plaintiffs allege that the NCAA holds monopsony power over the labor market for Division I athletes and, applying the rule-of-reason framework from NCAA v. Alston, 594 U.S. 69 (2021) and Ohio v. American Express, 585 U.S. 529 (2018), assert that the rule is a horizontal restraint producing substantial anticompetitive effects by excluding an entire graduating class from competition, without any procompetitive justification. Plaintiffs further contend the NCAA could adopt a less restrictive alternative: extending the same five-season eligibility benefit already granted to other classes (2017–2021 and 2023 onward) to the class of 2022 as well. In a related Ohio state-court action, Borovicanin et al. v. NCAA, Hamilton County Common Pleas Case No. A2603352, the court granted a preliminary injunction on contract grounds on July 9, 2026 while citing the NCAA’s alleged monopsony power over student-athletes as context for its balancing of the equities.

Illinois federal court preliminarily approves over USD37 million in additional settlements in PVC pipe price-fixing litigation. On July 7, 2026, US District Judge LaShonda A. Hunt preliminarily approved two settlements totaling over USD37 million between Pipelife Jet Stream Inc. and plaintiff classes in In re PVC Pipe Antitrust Litigation, 1:24-cv-07639 (N.D. Ill.). Plaintiffs alleged that Pipelife and other major PVC pipe manufacturers conspired to fix and stabilize PVC pipe and fittings prices beginning in January 2020. According to the complaint, the defendants allegedly used PVC & Pipe Weekly, an industry report published by Oil Price Information Service, to exchange competitively sensitive pricing information and coordinate price increases in violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act. The Pipelife settlements bring total direct purchaser class recoveries to over USD201 million, while the litigation continues against the remaining non-settling defendants.

UFC moves to dismiss fans’ proposed class action alleging monopolization of pay-per-view MMA events. On July 21, 2026, in Costantino et al. v. Zuffa LLC et al., 2:26-cv-00539 (D. Nev.), Ultimate Fighting Championship (UFC) and related entities moved to dismiss a proposed class action brought on behalf of fans for alleged violations of Sections 1 and 2 of the Sherman Act and the antitrust and consumer protection laws of 42 states. Plaintiffs alleged that the UFC monopolized the market for elite mixed martial arts (MMA) events and conspired with ESPN and Paramount to inflate consumer prices through exclusive distribution agreements. In the motion to dismiss, defendants invoked Illinois Brick Co. v. Illinois, arguing that plaintiffs were indirect purchasers who did not purchase anything directly from the UFC. Defendants also asserted that the ESPN+-related claims were time-barred, and that the named plaintiffs – residents of only four states – lack standing to assert claims under the laws of the 38 additional states.

Third Circuit revives algorithmic price-fixing suit and distinguishes Ninth Circuit’s ruling. On July 29, 2026, in Cornish Adebiyi v. Caesars Entertainment, Inc., No. 24-3006 (3d Cir.), the US Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit reversed the dismissal of a putative class action alleging that Atlantic City casino-hotels conspired to fix room prices through use of Cendyn’s Rainmaker revenue management software in violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act. Plaintiffs asserted that the casino-hotels fed nonpublic room pricing and occupancy data into Rainmaker, which it pooled with competitors' data to generate and upload room rates into each casino-hotel's system. The court distinguished the Ninth Circuit’s 2025 decision in Gibson v. Cendyn, which affirmed dismissal of a nearly identical claim against the same software vendor and group of Las Vegas hotels.

Recent legislation

California State Senate considers expanding antitrust law with COMPETE Act. California Assembly Bill 1776, known as the COMPETE Act, would expand the scope of activities prohibited by the state’s Cartwright Act. While proposed amendments to the bill may limit the extent of the expansion, the COMPETE Act would extend antitrust violations to include single-firm conduct. It may also contain a private right of action, giving Californians the right to sue if they are harmed by a company’s unilateral business actions that restrain or monopolize trade.

Criminal enforcement

Massachusetts AG secures USD2.4 million settlement with school bus company over contract allocation. On July 27, 2026, Massachusetts Attorney General (AG) Andrea Joy Campbell announced a USD2.4 million assurance of discontinuance with student transportation provider Beacon Mobility Corporation to resolve allegations that Beacon colluded to allocate contracts and make false statements regarding school bus contracts in Massachusetts municipalities. According to the AG’s Office, in 2022 Beacon agreed with another regional student transportation company not to compete for special education transportation contracts in certain municipalities in exchange for reciprocal forbearance elsewhere, raising prices charged to school districts. The assurance requires Beacon to maintain an antitrust compliance program for at least five years, notify the AG’s Office of any acquisitions of other transportation companies for ten years, cooperate in future investigations, and report any effort by a competitor to enter into or enforce an agreement to allocate contracts, fix prices, rig bids, or share competitively sensitive information relating to Massachusetts student transportation contracts.

Parties' trial briefs address the per se bid-rigging issues in United States v. BG Dale Biscoe as the case heads to trial in August 2026. On July 28, 2026, the US and defendants each filed briefs in United States v. BG Dale Biscoe, No. CR-24-314-J (W.D. Okla.), ahead of a trial set for August 2026. The government alleges that defendants violated Section 1 of the Sherman Act by conspiring to fix prices and rig bids for erosion control products and services from approximately September 2017 through April 2023. According to the government, the price of sod more than doubled during the alleged conspiracy, which affected contracts worth more than USD100 million awarded at collusive and non-competitive prices. The government emphasizes that the charged conduct is a per se violation, under which it “prevails simply by proving that a particular contract or business arrangement exists; no further market analysis is necessary, and defendants may not present any defenses.” In contrast, the defendants ask the court to preserve “the distinction between lawful competitive conduct and unlawful bid rigging,” arguing that mere competitor communications, exchanges of price information, market awareness, and conscious parallelism do not alone establish a Section 1 agreement. The defendants further seek leave to explain that distinction to the jury during opening statements, invoking a framing that a competitor’s price awareness can reflect “market intelligence” rather than “price fixing.”

Teva’s criminal DPA admissions establish civil antitrust liability to Humana in generic-drug price-fixing litigation. On July 28, 2026, US District Judge Cynthia Rufe held that Teva Pharmaceuticals’ admissions in its 2023 deferred prosecution agreement (DPA) with the US Department of Justice’s (DOJ) criminal antitrust enforcers render the company liable for separate civil antitrust violations alleged by Humana. In granting Humana’s motion for partial summary judgment, Judge Rufe found that Teva’s DPA admissions “clearly establish” that the company entered into an agreement with other generic drug manufacturers to increase the price of the cholesterol drug pravastatin, though Humana must still prove the injury and damages elements of its Sherman Act claims. In the DPA, Teva admitted to conspiring with competitors and agreed to cooperate with DOJ, pay USD225 million, divest its pravastatin business, and refrain from any public statement contradicting its acceptance of responsibility. Judge Rufe declined to credit Teva’s argument that it was “forced to negotiate the DPA” to avoid mandatory debarment from federal health care programs. The court ruled only on the motion pertaining to Teva, noting that Humana had stayed briefing against Glenmark, voluntarily dismissed its motion against Sandoz, and requested a delayed ruling as to Taro.

Civil enforcement

Bipartisan Senate bill addresses online search monopolization. Senators Amy Klobuchar and Eric Schmitt introduced the bipartisan Securing Enforcement of Americans’ Right to Competition at Home (SEARCH) Act of 2026, which would codify into law remedies sought by DOJ after prevailing in its monopolization case against Google’s online search business. If enacted, the bill would ban dominant search engines from paying distributors to secure default placement. The bill would also require dominant search engines to share data, syndicate search results, and offer users choice screens to switch to competing search engines. The sponsors framed the legislation as a bipartisan response to concerns that a small number of dominant search engines control access to information online. The DOJ, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC), and state attorneys general would have authority to enforce the SEARCH Act.

New Jersey enacts FAIR Act to ban algorithmic rent-setting practices. New Jersey is the latest state to restrict algorithmic rent-setting practices. On July 20, 2026, Governor Mikie Sherrill signed the Forbidding the Algorithmic Inflation of Rent (FAIR) Act into law, which is designed to prevent landlords from using consumer data and algorithms to set individualized prices. The legislation builds on ongoing litigation by New Jersey against alleged algorithmic collusion and reflects growing interest among state policymakers in curbing algorithm-driven pricing. For more information on the FAIR Act, see our client alert.

Merger review and challenges

The FTC’s USD12 million settlement over HSR avoidance. On July 13, 2026, Edwards Lifesciences and Genesis Medtech agreed to pay a combined USD12 million to settle claims that Edwards structured its 2024 acquisition of JC Medical from Genesis to avoid Hart-Scott-Rodino Act (HSR) review. The FTC claimed that the USD115 million purchase price, followed by “milestone payments,” was purposefully set to be just below the USD119.5 million HSR reporting threshold in effect at the time of the acquisition. It further alleged that Edwards contemporaneously invested USD25 million in Genesis in a Series B financing round. The FTC invoked HSR Rule 16 C.F.R. § 801.90, which allows the government to disregard the structure of a transaction that was put in place “for the purpose of avoiding” HSR review, and to focus the analysis on the “substance of the transaction.” The FTC warned that it will be vigilant in enforcing HSR compliance and will seek penalties where parties attempt to avoid lawful FTC review. Accordingly, alternative structures below the reportability threshold that technically avoid a filing obligation may not effectively do so under FTC scrutiny if they are unsupported by what the FTC determines to be solid business reasons.

TransDigm abandons proposed acquisition of Stellant Systems after DOJ decides to block the deal. On July 13, 2026, the DOJ announced that TransDigm Group Incorporated abandoned its proposed acquisition of competing defense and industrial component manufacturer Stellant Systems Inc. after the Antitrust Division informed the parties that it would seek to block the transaction in federal court. According to the Division, TransDigm and Stellant compete to supply and repair components used in radar systems for the US Navy’s Aegis Combat System and the US Air Force’s F-16 fighter jets, in addition to industrial products. The DOJ collaborated with the Department of War to investigate how the proposed acquisition would impact competition and access to critical products. The DOJ found that the acquisition would have left the Department of War with a single source for critical products which, in turn, would increase supply chain risks and remove the benefits of competition.

International

European Union

CJEU clarifies safeguards for seizure of business emails during dawn raids. In IMI – Imagens Médicas Integradas S.A. and Others v. Autoridade da Concorrência (C-258/23 to C-260/23), the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) considered whether business emails seized by the Portuguese competition authority during inspections carried out in connection with suspected infringements of Articles 101 and 102 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) were protected under Articles 7 and 8 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (Charter), which safeguard privacy, communications, and data protection. The CJEU held that emails exchanged between employees and managers via company email systems constitute protected "communications" within the meaning of Article 7 of the Charter. This protection applies regardless of whether the emails are business-related in form or content, sent from business premises or equipment, transmitted through a company messaging system, or sent using a corporate email address, and regardless of whether the employer prohibits use of the system or the content is private in nature.

The CJEU recognized that seizure of emails interferes with rights under Articles 7 and 8 of the Charter but found that such interference can be justified given that business emails are important sources of evidence in cartel and abuse investigations; therefore, depriving competition authorities of access to them would undermine enforcement. The court further confirmed that, although Articles 7 and 8 of the Charter do not require prior judicial authorization by a court before a competition authority seizes business emails at business premises, national laws must provide strict legal frameworks and sufficient safeguards against abuse and arbitrariness, such as effective ex post judicial review. The court distinguished between access to business email systems and access to personal devices (including phones, laptops, and storage devices belonging to employees or managers). Given the interference of privacy that may result from access to such devices, the court held that, where competition authorities seek access to personal devices belonging to individuals, such access should be subject to prior review by a court or independent administrative body.

Germany

German Federal Court of Justice overturns ruling in Baden-Württemberg roundwood cartel damages case. On July 28, 2026, the German Federal Court of Justice (Bundesgerichtshof, or BGH) overturned a judgment that had found the State of Baden-Württemberg liable in principle for damages arising from the joint marketing of roundwood. The proceedings, initiated in 2019, concern claims of approximately EUR270 million excluding interest, brought on behalf of 36 sawmills in relation to the joint marketing of roundwood from state, municipal, and private forests between 1978 and 2015. The BGH confirmed that the state and the municipalities acted as undertakings and that the arrangements constituted an agreement or concerted practice within the meaning of Article 101(1) TFEU but found that the lower court had not sufficiently established a restriction of competition by object or effect. Therefore, the BGH referred the case back to the Higher Regional Court of Stuttgart, which must also reconsider whether, inter alia, the sawmills purchased the relevant roundwood or suffered a cartel-related price overcharge.

United Kingdom

Proposed reorganization of UK competition regime. On July 17, 2026, the UK government published a series of competition law reform proposals for consultation, aimed at simplifying and improving the efficiency of the opt-out collective actions, regulatory appeals, and competition enforcement regimes. On the collective actions regime, the government considers that the current certification threshold is too low, allowing unmeritorious and speculative claims to proceed. It proposes replacing the current relative test with an absolute suitability test for certification that weighs merits and proportionality. It further proposes giving greater weight to a cost-benefits analysis intended to prevent claims that primarily benefit stakeholders such as lawyers and funders rather than the class. At the same time, the government intends to lift the ban on damages-based fee and funding agreements (DBAs) for collective actions. The government considers that the current funding system prevents smaller (i.e., less than GBP500 million in damages) but meritorious collective actions from being pursued, and that DBAs may bridge the funding gap for such claims. On public enforcement, the government noted a significant drop in leniency applications to the Competition and Markets Authority in recent years and considers that the risk of private damages claims – which often vastly exceed regulatory fines – may be to blame. To further incentivize companies to blow the whistle on cartels, the government therefore proposes to extend immunity from regulatory fines for the first leniency applicant to include immunity from private damages claims, unless claimants are otherwise unable to recover damages (e.g., from other cartelists). The consultation remains open until September 25, 2026.

Poland

UOKiK conducts dawn raids at a nationwide credit information bureau and major banks over potential restrictions of competition in creditworthiness assessments. On July 8, 2026, the President of the Office of Competition and Consumer Protection (Urząd Ochrony Konkurencji i Konsumentów, or UOKiK) announced a preliminary investigation into whether competition in the banking sector may have been restricted through creditworthiness-assessment rules and information exchange within the banking system. Acting under court authorization and with police assistance, UOKiK officials carried out searches at the headquarters of the Credit Information Bureau (Biuro Informacji Kredytowej, or BIK), a nationwide credit information bureau, as well as at three banks active in Poland: ING Bank Śląski, mBank, and mBank Hipoteczny. BIK is a private entity owned by nine commercial banks and the Polish Bankers’ Association, and its databases are widely used by banks when assessing creditworthiness and credit risk. Alongside potential consumer-protection concerns, the investigation is reportedly examining whether BIK’s collection, processing, and disclosure of information relating to credit inquiries amount to an abuse of a dominant position.

Spain

CNMC updates guidance on competition compliance programs. The Spanish competition authority, Comisión Nacional de los Mercados y la Competencia (CNMC), has approved an updated version of its competition compliance guidance, retaining the core structure and assessment criteria introduced in 2020, while clarifying their practical application. The revised guidance adds distinctions between the potential relevance of effective compliance programs for mitigating fines and their role in obtaining an exemption from, or lifting, a debarment from public procurement contracts. The update also incorporates references to recent Supreme Court rulings concerning procurement debarment. The authority stresses that compliance programs will be assessed on the basis of their actual effectiveness in practice, rather than their formal design alone, and emphasizes the importance of fostering proactive compliance measures within organizations.

Government nominates new CNMC president and board members. The Spanish Government has nominated Juan José Ganuza as president of the CNMC, together with Carmen Balsa, Marina Echebarría, and Joan Capdevila as new board members. The appointments are subject to parliamentary scrutiny before the Economy Committee of the Spanish Congress and subsequent formal approval. Ganuza, an economist and competition law scholar, is regarded as a technical and consensus-oriented appointment. At the same time, the new leadership team is expected to oversee the authority’s response to emerging challenges in digital markets, artificial intelligence, and energy regulation, while continuing efforts to strengthen the CNMC’s technical capabilities.