Welcome to Inside Competition, DLA Piper’s monthly bulletin designed to help companies identify key legal developments in US antitrust and competition law. In addition to reporting on antitrust litigation and enforcement actions, we also address policy developments, regulatory trends, and agency priorities shaping competition law today.
Our insights aim to help businesses identify risk, respond to investigations, and compete in a rapidly evolving legal landscape.
Civil litigation
New archery price-fixing case filed. In Hansen v. Archery Trade Association Inc. et al., 3:25-cv-00779, a proposed class action was filed in the Middle District of Tennessee accusing the Archery Trade Association (ATA), major retailers (including Dick’s Sporting Goods, Bass Pro Shops, and Cabela’s) and manufacturer Bowtech of coordinating minimum advertised price policies that allegedly fixed prices on bows, arrows, and related products since 2014. This case joins several others filed nationwide. Plaintiffs claim that the defendants used trade shows, confidential forums, and distribution threats to enforce a scheme aimed at reducing price competition in a USD1.2 billion market. The complaint seeks damages and injunctive relief on behalf of consumers nationwide who purchased archery goods during the alleged conspiracy period.
Judge dismisses price-fixing suit against hotels. In Dai et al. v. SAS Institute Inc. et al., 4:24-cv-02537, the US District Court for the Northern District of California dismissed without prejudice a putative class action alleging that Hyatt, Hilton, Wyndham, Four Seasons, Omni, and software provider SAS Institute conspired to inflate room rates by sharing confidential pricing and occupancy data through a common revenue-management platform. Judge Jeffrey White found that the complaint lacked plausible facts showing a horizontal agreement or parallel pricing conduct, noting deficiencies similar to those in other revenue management software antitrust cases. Plaintiffs have until August 25, 2025, to amend their complaint.
Claims narrowed in Live Nation antitrust suit. Consumers suing Live Nation and Ticketmaster agreed to drop allegations targeting the ticket resale market and will now focus solely on purported monopolization of primary ticketing services. The stipulation, filed in Heckman et al. v. Live Nation Entertainment Inc. et al., 2:22-cv-00047, in the US District Court for the Central District of California after initial discovery, streamlines claims that Live Nation’s exclusive promotion deals and long-term venue contracts have inflated face value ticket prices since the 2010 merger. Discovery continues while Live Nation petitions the Supreme Court to review an order denying arbitration.
Class certification granted to NCAA tennis players. The Middle District of North Carolina certified both a damages class and an injunctive relief class of Division I tennis players challenging National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) rules that require forfeiture of non-collegiate prize money. In Brantmeier et al. v. NCAA, 1:24-cv-00238, the court found common antitrust questions – such as the NCAA’s alleged monopsony power and the competitive impact of the prize money restriction – predominate and that class members are ascertainable from NCAA and tournament records. Trial is set for summer 2026, with the tennis players seeking compensation for forfeited earnings and an injunction permitting players to retain prize money without losing eligibility.
Criminal enforcement
DOJ announces first-of-its-kind Whistleblower Rewards Program. In July, the Department of Justice’s (DOJ) Antitrust Division announced for the first time in its history a Whistleblower Rewards Program that offers significant monetary incentives – up to 30 percent of fines over USD1 million – to individual whistleblowers who report information regarding antitrust and other related offenses not previously known to the government. The new program brings the Antitrust Division in line with other enforcers that have similar programs, such as those addressing violations of securities laws and the False Claims Act. While the new program was announced only in conjunction with the investigative arms of the US Postal Service (USPS), it is unlikely that this will significantly limit the availability of awards, as USPS agents historically have taken a broad view of their mandate to investigate offenses affecting the USPS, and previously partnered with Antitrust Division attorneys on numerous investigations. While the reported offense must affect USPS, its revenues, or property, there is no requirement that the USPS be materially impacted by the reported offenses.
Civil enforcement
FTC settles with NextMed. On July 14, 2025, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) announced a USD150,000 settlement with Southern Health Solutions, Inc. (NextMed) regarding NextMed’s alleged fake reviews and price-related deception for weight loss membership programs. The FTC alleged NextMed sold telehealth weight loss programs providing access to GLP-1 weight loss drugs like Wegovy and Ozempic at a monthly price of USD138 or USD188, without disclosing that this price did not include access to the drugs themselves. The FTC included a novel “unfair consumer review practices” count against NextMed, after third-party platform Trustpilot allegedly removed many fake NextMed reviews.
FTC’s “click-to-cancel” rule voided. The US Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit vacated the FTC’s “click-to-cancel” rule on procedural grounds, just days before it was scheduled to take effect. The Eighth Circuit held that the FTC did not comply with Section 22 of the FTC Act, which requires a preliminary regulatory analysis if a proposed rule has an expected economic impact exceeding USD100 million. The “click-to-cancel” rule would have required a business that offers subscription services to consumers to offer a cancellation mechanism as simple to use as the enrollment method.
FTC asks for an extension in pause of noncompete rule appeal. The FTC has asked the US Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit to keep an appeal over the agency’s currently blocked noncompete rule in abeyance for 60 days. Judge Ada E. Brown of the Northern District of Texas vacated the rule in August 2024, which the FTC appealed. Since then, the FTC has asked the court to keep the appeal in abeyance as the change in FTC leadership contemplates whether it wishes to defend the rule. If granted, the appeal would be held in abeyance until September 8, 2025.
Merger review and challenges
DOJ dismisses a challenge to the merger of AmexGBT and CWT Holdings. On July 29, 2025, DOJ withdrew its challenge to Global Business Travel Group Inc.’s (Amex GBT) merger with CWT Holdings LLC in United States v. Global Business Travel Group, et al., 1:25-cv-00215. The complaint claimed the deal would reduce competition in the market for corporate travel services, potentially leading to higher prices and reduced quality for business customers. In its stipulation of dismissal, DOJ stated that its decision to close the case was an "exercise of its prosecutorial discretion," without providing further explanation for its rationale. The decision clears the way for the merger to move forward.
International
Mexico adds a new antitrust authority. The Mexican Congress recently approved amendments to the Mexican Federal Competition Law. These amendments extinguish the Federal Economic Competition Commission (COFECE) and create the National Antitrust Commission (CNA). The amendments strengthen the powers and sanctions available to the CNA, provide for faster procedures, and recognize the attorney-client privilege in CNA proceedings. The amendments also lower the monetary thresholds that require pre-merger filing, modify the timing and eligibility of leniency programs, and recognize compliance programs as an avenue to reduce fines for investigations. The amendments further broaden the definition of monopolistic practices to include exchanges of information and encourage collective actions for damage compensation.
[View source.]
