Inside Competition: November 2026

Intuitive Surgical agrees to pay $450 million to settle hospital class action over the da Vinci repair market, as the Ninth Circuit keeps a rival repairer’s suit alive.

In its October 20, 2026 third-quarter earnings release, Intuitive Surgical Inc. disclosed that it reached a $450 million settlement plus mutually agreed-upon injunctive relief for the hospital class action in In re da Vinci Surgical Robot Antitrust Litigation, No. 4:21-cv-3825. The settlement is not an admission of liability or wrongdoing. The hospital plaintiffs’ 2021 class action alleged that Intuitive Surgical monopolized the market for servicing and repairing its da Vinci surgical robots and EndoWrist instruments by making itself the de facto exclusive repair provider and blocking third-party servicers. At summary judgment, the Northern District of California ruled that the da Vinci robot and EndoWrist instruments are separate product markets and that a distinct antitrust aftermarket exists for EndoWrist repair and replacement. The settlement remains subject to preliminary and final court approval. Separately, on October 21, 2026, the Ninth Circuit declined to rehear en banc the August 13, 2026 decision reversing the district court’s judgment in favor of Intuitive Surgical in Surgical Instrument Service Co. v. Intuitive Surgical, Inc., No. 25-1372 (9th Cir.). The panel held that the district court’s jury instruction was erroneous and that Intuitive Surgical was not entitled to judgment as a matter of law.

Consumers sue National Milk Producers Federation and 13 dairy cooperatives, alleging export program is a supply-restricting cartel.

On October 5, 2026, a proposed class of 26 consumers sued the National Milk Producers Federation (NMPF) and 13 dairy cooperatives in the US District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, Norfolk Division, in Oriakhi v. National Milk Producers Federation, No. 2:26-cv-01093 (E.D. Va.). The complaint addresses NMPF's Cooperatives Working Together, a farmer-funded export assistance program that has now been rebranded as the NEXT Program. Participating cooperatives allegedly contribute two cents per hundredweight of milk marketed to subsidize exports of butter, cheese, milk powders, cream, and milk protein concentrate. Plaintiffs claim that the program diverts products from the domestic market without increasing production, constraining US supply and causing consumers to pay “supracompetitive prices” for dairy products since January 1, 2018. They further allege that participants account for up to 70 percent of US milk production and that the conduct falls outside the joint-marketing protections available to agricultural cooperatives. NMPF counters that the program supports overseas sales and better aligns domestic milk supply with demand. Plaintiffs seek injunctive relief under the Sherman Antitrust Act and damages under the antitrust and consumer protection laws of 31 states and the District of Columbia, as well as relief for unjust enrichment.

Judge sends Keurig K-Cup monopolization, tying, and exclusive-dealing claims to trial.

On October 20, 2026, Judge Vernon S. Broderick of the Southern District of New York unsealed an order partially granting Keurig’s motion for summary judgment in In re Keurig Green Mountain Single-Serve Coffee Antitrust Litigation, No. 1:14-md-02542 (S.D.N.Y.). The plaintiffs are competing pod makers, a distributor, and a group of direct purchasers. They allege that Keurig used exclusionary agreements, sham litigation, and brewer “lock-out” technology to monopolize the market for compatible cups. The court allowed the plaintiffs to proceed to trial on exclusive-dealing claims based on Keurig’s roaster, distributor, and supplier agreements; conspiracy claims based on the roaster agreements; tying claims based on the distributor agreements; certain false advertising claims under the Lanham Act; and related state-law and tortious-interference claims. However, the court granted summary judgment to Keurig on exclusive-dealing claims based on its retail agreements, antitrust claims based on false advertising similar to National Ass'n of Pharmaceutical Manufacturers v. Ayerst Laboratories (2d Cir. 1988), claims based on the 2.0 Brewer, sham litigation, patent misuse, roaster acquisitions, tortious interference with contract, and related state law claims.

New York City addresses anticompetitive conduct concerns.

On October 8, 2026, the New York City Council introduced the People and Organizations Winning Economic Relief (POWER) Act under Mayor Zohran Mamdani. The bill would ban unfair methods of competition and unfair, deceptive, abusive, or unlawful business practices in New York City, “without relying on federal and state oversight.” It would create a private right of action, which state law does not provide, with damages of $2,500 per violation, mandatory attorney’s fees, and standing for nonprofits. It also directs courts to read its terms in line with the Federal Trade Commission (FTC)’s 2022 Section 5 policy statement and the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB)’s 2023 abusive-practices statement, “regardless of whether such policy statement is active, superseded, or rescinded.”

Second, on October 14, 2026, Manhattan District Attorney Alvin L. Bragg Jr. launched a Corporate Crime and Antitrust Task Force. The task force will criminally pursue antitrust violations, healthcare fraud, and other consumer fraud, seeking “systemic accountability” against “the high-level actors, corporations, and structures” that profit at New Yorkers’ expense.

Third, on October 15, 2026, New York City’s Department of Consumer and Worker Protection sued CarGurus, Inc. in New York State Supreme Court. The suit alleges more than 2,000 violations of New York City’s Consumer Protection Law through misleading "Great Deal" ratings, hidden junk fees, and an artificial intelligence (AI) chatbot that strips out dealer disclaimers. It applies the agency’s September policy statement, which states that chatbots and other AI systems are covered by New York City consumer protection law. Together, these actions reflect New York City activity on several fronts: proposed legislation, a new criminal task force, and civil litigation. Businesses operating in New York may wish to monitor these developments as they relate to competition and consumer-facing practices.

Maryland’s ban on personalized grocery pricing takes effect.

On October 1, 2026, Maryland’s Protection From Predatory Pricing Act (HB 895) took effect. The law applies to food retailers with stores of at least 15,000 square feet that sell groceries on site and to third-party grocery delivery services. HB 895 bars these businesses from using “dynamic pricing” to set higher prices, which it defines as setting a personalized price for a specific consumer based on that consumer’s personal data. Violations are treated as unfair, abusive, or deceptive trade practices under the Maryland Consumer Protection Act. Penalties can reach $10,000 per violation, or $25,000 per violation for repeat violators, and there is no private right of action.

Hungary implements the EU Asset Recovery Directive and introduces a new asset recovery framework.

Directive (EU) 2024/1260 strengthens the EU framework for tracing, freezing, confiscating, and managing criminal assets, particularly those linked to organized crime. It broadens the available confiscation mechanisms, including extended, third-party, and non-conviction-based confiscation. Following the 2026 parliamentary elections, the Hungarian government established the National Asset Recovery and Asset Protection Office, or Nemzeti Vagyonvédelmi Hivatal (NVVH). The NVVH can conduct or take over investigations; bring indictments; and trace, secure, and recover criminal proceeds and other assets linked to criminal activity. As part of implementing the Directive, Hungary has also introduced a new form of extended confiscation. It can reach assets that a third party acquired from a participant in a criminal organization, where those assets or the third party’s lifestyle are manifestly disproportionate to their verifiable income and personal circumstances. The mechanism extends confiscation beyond the perpetrators of the underlying offense to certain assets transferred to third parties. If a bid-rigging scheme meets the criteria for a criminal organization, for example because it involves officials of the contracting authority, the proceeds may be confiscated.

Contractor pleads guilty to paying kickbacks on US Postal Service facilities repair contracts.

On October 27, 2026, Ilya Zagaryuk pleaded guilty to conspiring to commit an offense against the US. Zagaryuk owns a company that contracted and subcontracted to perform facilities repairs at dozens of US Postal Service facilities in Oregon, Idaho, Wyoming, Montana, and Washington state. According to filings in the US District Court for the Eastern District of California, Zagaryuk paid over $465,000 in kickbacks between May 2022 and February 2024 to a co-conspirator employed by a prime contractor on US Postal Service projects as a reward for directing work to his company. The co-conspirators inflated estimates and invoices to cover the kickbacks. Associate Attorney General Stanley E. Woodward Jr. stated that “[c]ollusion that harms the U.S. Postal Service, and ultimately the American taxpayer, is illegal and will not be tolerated.” Zagaryuk faces up to five years in prison and up to $250,000 in fines. He agreed to pay $465,347.75 in restitution, jointly and severally with his co-defendants. The San Francisco Office of the US Department of Justice (DOJ) Antitrust Division and the US Attorney’s Office for the Eastern District of California are prosecuting the case.

Former US Army official pleads guilty to bribery and major fraud tied to Hawaii defense contracts.

On October 28, 2026, Carlos Duque, a former civilian US Army official, pleaded guilty in the US District Court for the District of Hawaii to conspiracy, bribery, and major fraud in connection with a scheme that corrupted the competitive process for a US Army technology innovation lab in the Pacific. According to the plea agreement, from January 2021 to October 2022, Duque conspired with defense contractors Brian Kent and Leonard Pick, who agreed to pay him approximately $1.25 million in bribes over five years. In return, Duque directed prime contractors to award subcontracts to Kent and Pick’s company. Duque also helped fraudulently inflate government contracting costs to fund the bribes. Duque ultimately received about $55,000 in bribes, and the US Army paid over $3 million to Kent and Pick’s company. Duque faces up to 15 years in prison on the bribery charge and up to ten years and a $5 million fine on the major fraud charge. He agreed to forfeit $55,166.70. Kent and Pick were indicted in May 2026 and are scheduled for trial on May 17, 2027, in United States v. Brian Kent, et al., No. 26-CR-00047-DKW (D. Haw.).

FTC brings four price transparency actions in four weeks.

Between October 8 and November 2, 2026, the FTC announced four enforcement actions addressing pricing transparency. In FTC v. Greenway Auto Group, announced October 8, 2026, the FTC alleged that the dealership group routinely advertised vehicles for thousands of dollars less than consumers ultimately paid, through mandatory fees, packages, and conditional discounts. According to the FTC, in more than 92 percent of transactions, consumers paid an average of more than $3,350 above the advertised price. In FTC v. Dollar General, announced October 26, 2026, the FTC and 20 states alleged that the retailer had charged consumers more at the register than the prices displayed on shelves, tags, and advertisements, resulting in millions of dollars in overcharges over years. In FTC v. Toast Inc., announced October 29, 2026, the FTC and state partners alleged that Toast imposed hidden and unauthorized fees and unwanted add-ons on restaurant customers, obscured certain consumer charges, and used deceptive subscription and cancellation practices. Finally, in FTC v. Riverside Payments Inc., announced on November 2, 2026, the FTC and Washington state alleged that the payment processor promised small businesses savings of 40 to 60 percent while omitting material fees from its cost comparisons and enrolling customers in automatically renewing contracts that were difficult to cancel. Collectively, these matters reflect the FTC’s focus on the accuracy and completeness of advertised prices across consumer retail, automobiles, restaurant technology, and business payment processing.

FTC orders nine companies to report on use of personal data in pricing and worker compensation.

On October 28, 2026, the FTC announced that it had issued special orders under Section 6(b) of the FTC Act to nine US-based entities. The orders seek detailed information about whether personal data and algorithmic tools are used to vary prices or worker compensation. The inquiry is aimed at companies that set prices directly, unlike the FTC’s 2024 inquiry, which, according to the FTC, examined intermediary consultancies. The FTC has not alleged wrongdoing by any recipient of the special orders.

Competition Bureau Canada signals continued focus on grocery-sector competition.

Competition Bureau Canada is investigating the use of minimum advertised price (MAP) policies in the Canadian grocery sector and has invited submissions from industry participants and consumers. The investigation, announced in a September 28, 2026 news release, follows the Bureau’s statement that advertised prices play a significant role in how consumers compare grocery offers and identify savings opportunities. Although MAP policies generally regulate the prices retailers may promote rather than the prices at which products are sold, the Bureau is examining whether such restrictions may affect competitive outcomes by limiting the visibility of discounts, creating challenges for lower-cost and emerging retailers, or reducing incentives for price rivalry. In announcing the inquiry, Interim Commissioner of Competition Jeanne Pratt stated that Canadians expect to see retailers competing through advertised deals. The Competition Bureau noted that “MAP policies are not always against the law” but, in some circumstances, can violate provisions such as price maintenance, abuse of dominance, or agreements that harm competition. The information-gathering exercise will inform both the Bureau's assessment of MAP practices and its broader examination of competition across Canada’s food supply chain.

CNMC investigates potential cartel conduct in the corrugated cardboard sector.

Spain’s Competition Authority, or Comisión Nacional de los Mercados y la Competencia (CNMC), is investigating potential anticompetitive practices in the corrugated cardboard manufacturing sector. The investigation concerns suspected agreements or concerted practices involving customer allocation, price coordination, non-aggression arrangements, and exchanges of commercially sensitive information. As part of its investigation, the CNMC carried out dawn raids at the premises of several companies in the sector between October 6 and 9, 2026. The dawn raids constitute a preliminary step and may lead to the opening of formal infringement proceedings.

CNMC opens proceedings against Exolum over potential abuses of dominance.

CNMC has opened proceedings against Exolum over potential abuses of dominance. CNMC has opened infringement proceedings against Exolum, Spain’s leading logistics operator for liquid hydrocarbons, in relation to three potential abuses of a dominant position. The investigation concerns alleged excessive pricing through tariff increases and a refusal to grant a competing third-party operator access to Exolum’s transport and storage facilities at the Port of Tarragona. According to the CNMC, the alleged conduct may have enabled Exolum to maintain high margins and strengthen its position while restricting a competitor’s ability to operate in downstream markets. The proceedings follow reports from the CNMC’s Regulatory Supervision Chamber, an access dispute concerning Exolum’s network, and a dawn raid at the company’s headquarters.

Poland’s UOKiK files Google objections.

In October, Poland’s Office of Competition and Consumer Protection, or Urzęd Ochrony Konkurencji i Konsumentów (UOKiK), raised objections against four Google group companies for suspected abuse of a dominant position in negotiations with Polish press publishers. UOKiK alleges that Google withheld legally required information, including on its use of press content and the revenue it generates, preventing publishers from assessing its offers and turning the talks into "negotiations in name only". These are the latest of UOKiK's actions involving large technology companies. UOKiK President Tomasz Chróstny stated that "the rules of fair market competition apply to everyone, including the world's largest technology companies."

FTC and 12 states sue to block PlayPower's acquisition of rival playground manufacturer BCI Burke, prompting the parties to abandon deal.

On October 19, 2026, the FTC and 12 states sued in the US District Court for the Northern District of California to block Platinum Equity portfolio company PlayPower’s proposed acquisition of BCI Burke. According to the complaint, five companies, including PlayPower and Burke, hold 85 to 90 percent of the US market for commercial outdoor playground equipment, and the deal would create a presumptively unlawful, highly concentrated market. The FTC alleged that the proposed merger would increase prices and decrease innovation and quality of equipment for schools, churches, and parks and recreation departments. The complaint also alleged PlayPower could force independent sales representatives to accept worse terms and limits on switching manufacturers. The FTC voted 2–0 to seek a permanent injunction in federal court without filing an administrative complaint, consistent with the FTC’s recent shift away from its internal administrative proceedings. Eight days later, on October 27, 2026, the parties abandoned the deal.

FTC accepts proposed consent order in Publicis’s $2.2 billion acquisition of LiveRamp subject to a behavioral consent order.

On October 19, 2026, the FTC announced a proposed consent order allowing Publicis Groupe S.A. to acquire LiveRamp Holdings Inc., which the FTC describes as the leading data connectivity provider for media marketing. The FTC’s complaint alleged that the transaction would violate Section 7 of the Clayton Antitrust Act of 1914 by decreasing competition in media agency services and audience data services. According to the FTC, Publicis is the largest of the five major US advertising agencies, and the acquisition would give it the ability and incentive to deny or degrade rivals’ access to LiveRamp. The FTC also alleged that Publicis could use non-Publicis clients’ competitively sensitive data to pressure them to switch agencies. Instead of a divestiture, the order imposes five years of conduct remedies. Publicis and LiveRamp must provide customers with non-discriminatory access to and support for LiveRamp’s standalone products and services on fair and reasonable terms. They may not deny, degrade, delay, or impair that access and must maintain firewalls that prevent Publicis from accessing or using LiveRamp customer data. An independent auditor will review compliance every six months for the first two years after closing and annually for the following three years. The order also bars retaliation against customers who discuss compliance concerns with the FTC, allows customers to request audits of Publicis’s data protection obligations, and provides for third-party mediation of disputes unresolved after 30 days. The FTC voted 2–0 to accept the consent agreement for a 30-day public comment period. Publicis stated the commitments were “proactively proposed” and it expects to close the deal before the end of the year.

New Jersey requires asphalt plant divestitures as a condition of CRH plc’s $8 billion acquisition of Arcosa.

On October 20, 2026, New Jersey Attorney General Jennifer Davenport filed a complaint and proposed consent judgment in the US District Court for the District of New Jersey challenging CRH plc’s proposed acquisition of Arcosa, Inc. CRH plc agreed in June to buy Arcosa for more than $8 billion. The settlement requires CRH plc to divest several hot-mix asphalt (HMA) plants, including facilities in Flemington, South River, Hillsborough, Howell, and Pennington, New Jersey. The complaint alleged that, absent relief, CRH plc and Arcosa together would control roughly 75 percent of New Jersey Department of Transportation (NJDOT)-approved HMA supply across Mercer, Hunterdon, Somerset, Middlesex, and Monmouth counties. According to the complaint, the combination would eliminate head-to-head competition and raise costs for taxpayers, who fund hundreds of millions of dollars in road projects each year. The State of New Jersey emphasized the market’s high barriers to entry, noting that new entrants would need land close to an aggregate quarry, a new plant, land-use and environmental permits, and NJDOT approval for each HMA mix. The settlement gives New Jersey sole discretion to approve the buyers of the divested assets, and the proposed consent judgment is awaiting judicial approval.