Inside Competition: November 2025

Inside Competition is designed to help companies identify key 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

Mortgage borrowers allege rate price fixing in suit against lenders and software company. In Mendez v. Optimal Blue, LLC, et al., case number 3:25-cv-01140, mortgagors filed a putative class action in Tennessee federal court against software company Optimal Blue and 26 major mortgage lenders. The complaint alleges that Optimal Blue’s software facilitates coordination among lenders by sharing competitively sensitive information, including real-time pricing data, enabling a conspiracy to fix mortgage rates and inflate prices for millions of homebuyers since 2019. Plaintiffs seek damages and injunctive relief.

Motions to dismiss granted in part and denied in part in Granulated Sugar Antitrust multi-district litigation (MDL). In In Re: Granulated Sugar Antitrust Litigation, MDL No. 3110, the US District Court for the District of Minnesota dismissed antitrust and state law claims against several sugar producers, finding that the plaintiffs did not plausibly connect the producers to any agreement to fix prices or unlawfully exchange information. The court, however, denied the motions to dismiss two of the producers, finding the plaintiffs’ allegations sufficient that these producers exchanged competitively sensitive information through an intermediary, used a common pricing formula, and raised prices in tandem. The plaintiffs, consisting of three groups – Direct Purchasers, Commercial Indirect Purchasers, and Consumer Indirect Purchasers – were granted 30 days for leave to amend their consolidated complaint to address the dismissed claims and to rectify deficiencies relating to their claim for prospective injunctive relief.

New York federal court adopts DOJ’s Google ad tech ruling. In In Re: Google Digital Advertising Antitrust Litigation, MDL No. 3010, the US District Court for the Southern District of New York granted partial summary to publishers and advertisers, finding that Google monopolized worldwide markets for publisher ad servers and ad exchanges, as well as unlawfully tied its ad server to its ad exchange, in violation of Sections 1 and 2 of the Sherman Act. The court based its decision on an Eastern District of Virginia bench trial ruling from April 2025 that found Google liable for similar claims brought by the US Department of Justice (DOJ) and several states. The New York MDL applied principles of issue preclusion in its determination, finding that 1) the issues in the DOJ action were substantively identical to those raised in the MDL, 2) Google had a robust opportunity to defend itself in the DOJ action, and 3) the DOJ action bench trial ruling detailed specific findings necessary to its judgment which could be adopted by the MDL court. For a more detailed overview of this ruling, please read our alert, “New York federal court applies broad preclusive effect and adopts DOJ’s Google ad tech ruling.”

Criminal enforcement

Lopez sentenced in the nation’s first wage fixing trial. In October, the DOJ sought an eight- to ten-year prison sentence and roughly $7.8 million in restitution for Eduardo Lopez, a healthcare staffing executive convicted at the nation’s first wage fixing trial. Prosecutors say nurses lost at least $5 per hour, and $5.3 million in restitution would go to the affected nurses. Lopez, who was found guilty of violating Section 1 of the Sherman Act and of wire fraud, seeks probation and disputes the loss calculations. The ruling could set a benchmark for labor-market antitrust sentencing.

California enacts SB 763, sharply increasing Cartwright Act penalties to deter anticompetitive conduct. California Governor Gavin Newsom signed SB 763 into law, delivering the most significant update to the state’s Cartwright Act penalties in decades and signaling a tougher posture on corporate antitrust violations. The legislation raises maximum Cartwright Act criminal fines to $6 million per corporate violation and to $1 million for individuals. It also adds civil penalties up to $1 million per violation, calibrated based on the nature, seriousness, and persistence of the misconduct. Backed by Attorney General (AG) Rob Bonta and Senator Melissa Hurtado, the law aims to strengthen deterrence, protect workers and consumers from collusion, and modernize penalties to reflect current market realities.

Civil enforcement

State AGs voice concern over recycling practices. On October 29, 2025, state AGs from multiple states, including Florida and Texas, sent letters to environmental groups regarding antitrust concerns over coordinated recycling practices. Florida Attorney General James Uthmeier, who leads the coalition, wrote that certain groups “are hindering states’ economic prosperity by coordinating business behavior, which would constitute violations of Florida’s antitrust laws.” The state AGs allege the groups pushed corporations to use the same plastic production and packaging standards, which they allege could limit competition and, thus, lead to higher costs and fewer consumer choices.

DC Circuit keeps block on FTC’s Media Matters probe. The DC Circuit issued its 2–1 decision refusing to lift the emergency stay issued by the DC District Court. The panel’s decision keeps a preliminary injunction in place that blocks the US Federal Trade Commission (FTC) investigation into Media Matters, a liberal watchdog group. The panel noted the difficulty Media Matters faces in showing that the FTC “acted with retaliatory motive,” but that the FTC has not justified contravening Media Matters’ First Amendment rights. Read more in Inside Competition’s previous coverage here.

AGs sue Zillow and Redfin for alleged unlawful agreement not to compete. In Virginia v. Zillow Group, Inc., et al., case number 1:25-cv-1647, AGs for Virginia, Arizona, Connecticut, New York, and Washington filed suit in the Eastern District of Virginia alleging that a February 2025 partnership and licensing agreement between Zillow, a real estate website, and Redfin, a real estate brokerage, unlawfully suppressed competition for online listings of multifamily housing. The lawsuit follows a similar suit filed by the FTC in September 2025. The complaint seeks 1) a declaration that the agreements are illegal, 2) equitable relief to restore competition, and 3) injunctive relief, including divestiture or restructuring of the defendants’ businesses.

Merger review and challenges

US Chamber of Commerce Survey: New HSR Form adds time and cost, yields no benefits. A US Chamber of Commerce survey of Hart–Scott–Rodino (HSR) practitioners revealed that the new HSR Form takes two to three times longer to prepare than the old form – averaging 20 business days, or 100 outside-counsel hours. Despite the additional information required, respondents reported no cognizable benefits in terms of reducing in-depth investigations (i.e., “second requests”), decreasing the likelihood of having to pull-and-refile to give the agencies more time for a preliminary investigation, or improving review timeliness. Legal fees to prepare a filing under the new regime average $155,000.

Recent legislation

California. Signed into law on October 6, 2025, AB 325 makes it unlawful to use or distribute common pricing algorithms as part of any contract, combination, or conspiracy that restrains trade. The law also prohibits entities from using or distributing common pricing algorithms while coercing another to adopt algorithm-recommended prices or commercial terms. The law takes effect January 1, 2026.

New York. S.7882 amends New York’s Donnelly Act to ban landlords’ use of pricing algorithms to determine rental rates. The law makes it unlawful to facilitate agreements among landlords via algorithms that collect multi-landlord data, process it, and recommend rents or lease terms. S.7882 also deems it an unlawful agreement for a landlord to set or adjust rents or lease terms based on recommendations from a coordinating-function tool. Signed into law on October 16, 2025, it takes effect 60 days later, on December 15, 2025.

For more information about US lawsuits and legislation related to the alleged use of pricing algorithms, please read our alert, “Antitrust meets AI: Plaintiffs, enforcers, and legislatures take aim at alleged AI-driven collusion.”

Contacts

Learn more about our Antitrust and Competition practice by contacting our editors and contributors:

Managing editors: Greg Casas, Becky Caruso, Emily Collins

Administrative editors: William Conway, Janie Rowland, Claire Smith

Contributors: Brian Boyle, Mandy Chan, Mike Keramidas, Paolo Morante, Leslie Rebnord

 

^{For professional responsibility reasons, these summaries may not include discussions of developments relating to certain matters.}