Neon light decorating a morden building 2560x975

16 March 2026 • 8 minute read

Inside Competition: March 2026

The latest in antitrust and competition law

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 addresses 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

Opposing dismissal, plaintiffs argue circumstantial evidence is substantial in frozen potato price-fixing case. In Redner's Markets, Inc. v. Lamb Weston Holdings, Inc., et al., case number 1:24-cv-11801, plaintiffs allege that four frozen potato processors purported to control approximately 97 percent of the US market conspired to fix prices beginning in January 2021, resulting in unprecedented profit margins even after input costs declined. Defendants moved to dismiss in December 2025, arguing that circumstantial evidence, including parallel pricing and participation in PotatoTrack benchmarking services, reflects lawful, independent conduct consistent with rational economic self-interest. In their February 2026 opposition, plaintiffs argue that their allegations plausibly support an inference of conspiracy, claiming 1) consciousness of guilt, including instructions to communicate via text message to avoid discoverable records; 2) unlawful information exchange through PotatoTrack and direct circulation of price-increase letters; 3) parallel price increases disproportionate to input costs; 4) actions against individual self-interest absent collusion; 5) abrupt departures from established pricing practices; and 6) internal statements that processors agreed to maintain unprecedented margins. On February 27, 2026, the US Department of Justice (DOJ) submitted a statement of interest in support of the plaintiffs’ argument regarding their information exchange claim.

California federal court strikes class allegations in Robinson-Patman challenge to snack pricing. In Alqosh Enterprises, Inc. v. PepsiCo, Inc., case number 2:25-cv-01327, the court granted PepsiCo and Frito-Lay’s motion to strike class allegations. The lawsuit alleges that defendants charged chain stores less for snack chips than smaller independent retailers in violation of the Robinson-Patman Act under US federal law as well as California’s Unfair Practices Act and Unfair Competition Law. Plaintiffs failed to demonstrate that the proposed class suffered a common injury because each element of the price discrimination claim requires individualized, transaction-specific proof. The court granted plaintiffs leave to amend the complaint within 21 days.

Second Circuit rejects anesthesiologists' antitrust suit against UnitedHealthcare. In Long Island Anesthesiologists PLLC v. UnitedHealthcare Insurance Co. of New York Inc. et al., case number 25-1167, the Second Circuit affirmed dismissal of federal and state antitrust claims brought by an anesthesiology practice against UnitedHealthcare and MultiPlan, Inc. The suit alleged that defendants conspired to dramatically reduce out-of-network reimbursement rates by approximately 80 percent for services provided to members of the Empire Plan, a health plan administered by UnitedHealthcare covering approximately 1.2 million New York public-sector employees. The plaintiff failed to allege antitrust injury as the lower reimbursement rates are consistent with federal statutory language and standard health insurance practices. The court barred the plaintiff from amending its pleading a second time.

Criminal enforcement

DOJ closes criminal investigation into Symrise AG. German flavor and fragrance maker Symrise AG, or Symrise, announced that the DOJ closed its antitrust investigation into the company on February 5, 2026, finding no unlawful practice by Symrise. The DOJ’s probe focused on an alleged price-fixing conspiracy involving Symrise and three other fragrance companies: Givaudan SA, Firmenich International SA, and International Flavors & Fragrances. The DOJ has reportedly closed its investigations into all four companies.

Owners of sports equipment company indicted for bid rigging focused on Mississippi schools. In February 2026, a federal grand jury indicted Jon Christopher Burt, Gerald Steven Lavender, and Jack Nelson Purvis Jr. for alleged violations of Section 1 of the Sherman Act arising from alleged bid rigging affecting the sale of sports equipment to Mississippi public schools. The indictment alleges that defendants conspired to bypass Mississippi procurement laws – which require two competitive bids for purchases of more than $5,000 – by pre-arranging winners and by submitting fake, inflated “second quotes.” The indictment alleges that at least 44 public schools were affected by the scheme.

Former roofing executive pleads guilty to bid rigging conspiracy. On February 26, 2026, the DOJ announced that Gregg Wallick, former president and CEO of a Florida commercial roofing company, pleaded guilty to bid rigging in violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act. Wallick and his alleged co-conspirators purportedly agreed on prices and coordinated “comp” bids, where one alleged conspirator would submit an overpriced bid to help another win a commercial roofing contract. The Antitrust Division's Washington Criminal Section is prosecuting the case with support from the Procurement Collusion Strike Force.

Civil enforcement

DOJ bench trial to proceed against Agri Stats despite pending private class action. In United States v. Agri Stats, Inc., case number 0:23-cv-03009, the DOJ and six state plaintiffs allege that Agri Stats orchestrated anti-competitive information exchanges among poultry and pork processors to raise prices and restrict supply. The District of Minnesota recently addressed whether scheduling the DOJ’s bench trial before the jury trial in the related private action, In re Pork Antitrust Litigation, would violate Agri Stats’ Seventh Amendment right to a jury trial. Agri Stats argued that, if the bench trial proceeded first, collateral estoppel could allow a private plaintiff to foreclose re-litigation of issues decided against it, effectively denying its right to have those issues heard by a jury. The court rejected this argument, holding that such preclusion would not run afoul of the Seventh Amendment or Supreme Court precedent. The DOJ trial is set for May 4, 2026.

DOJ accuses Ohio healthcare system of using contractual restrictions to block low-cost insurance plans. In United States and State of Ohio v. OhioHealth Corporation, case number 2:26-cv-207, the government alleges that Ohio Health, the dominant hospital system in Columbus, exerts its market power to impose contractual restrictions that prevent commercial health insurers from offering budget-conscious plans designed to steer patients toward lower-cost rival providers. According to the complaint, these alleged restrictions affect at least 85 percent of the commercial health insurance market in Columbus, insulating OhioHealth from price competition and enabling it to maintain supracompetitive reimbursement rates despite not offering consistently higher-quality care than competitors. The government seeks injunctive relief prohibiting OhioHealth from enforcing these restrictions.

DOJ and FTC seek public input on new competitor collaboration guidelines. On February 23, 2026, the DOJ’s Antitrust Division and the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) announced a public inquiry seeking comment on potential new guidance regarding collaboration among competitors. The agencies stated the joint inquiry aims to develop updated guidelines that will provide greater certainty for businesses and promote competition in today’s economy. This announcement follows the agencies’ December 2024 withdrawal of the Antitrust Guidelines for Collaborations Among Competitors. For more information, please visit our client alert here.

State AGs target corporate sustainability initiatives. On February 10, 2026, ten state Attorneys General (AGs), led by Florida AG James Uthmeier, sent warning letters to dozens of companies cautioning that their membership in plastic waste reduction organizations may violate antitrust and consumer protection laws. The warning letters characterize these organizations’ efforts to reduce plastic packaging as “collective action” and “coordinated practices” that could reduce economic output, increase prices, and mislead consumers. The letters advise the corporations to preserve relevant documents in anticipation of potential investigations and are part of a broader trend of state antitrust scrutiny of collaborative environmental, social, and governance (ESG) initiatives.

Merger review and challenges

California passes state-level Hart–Scott–Rodino Act pre-merger notification requirement. On February 10, 2026, California Governor Gavin Newsom signed into law SB 25, the California Uniform Antitrust Pre-Merger Notification Act. The Act requires a party who files a federal pre-merger notification under the Hart–Scott–Rodino Antitrust Improvements Act of 1976, or HSR Act, to also provide a copy to the California AG within one business day if the HSR filer has either 1) its principal place of business in California or 2) at least $26.78 million in annual net sales in California of the goods or services involved in the reported transaction. The threshold amount in 1) is subject to annual adjustment. The Act prohibits the AG from disclosing the filed information to third parties, except in limited circumstances. The law goes into effect on January 1, 2027, making California the third state – joining Washington and Colorado – to enact a generally applicable, state-level pre-merger notification regime.