USA Law and Practice Contributed by: Robert Houck, William Lavery, Leigh Oliver and Joseph Ostoyich, Clifford Chance LLP
to repair tools. The Federal Trade Commission (FTC)’s separate lawsuit, which was filed in 2025, also settled soon after. DirectTV, LLC v Nexstar Media Group, Inc Questions of antitrust injury and antitrust standing are often contested in private antitrust litigation. In DirectTV , LLC v Nexstar Media Group , Inc , DirecTV alleged that a purported conspiracy among broadcast television stations to fix retransmission-consent fees through a co-ordinated bargaining strategy enabled the broadcasters to demand supra-competitive rates and resulted in prolonged broadcast blackouts when DirecTV refused to agree to the demanded terms. In a December 2025 decision, the Second Circuit reversed the district court’s dismissal of DirecTV’s federal antitrust claims, holding that DirecTV had plausibly alleged both antitrust injury and antitrust standing. The court held that DirecTV’s alleged loss of subscribers and profits during the blackouts con - stituted a cognisable antitrust injury, notwithstanding that DirecTV did not actually pay the allegedly supra- competitive retransmission fees. The court reasoned that lost profits caused by reduced output are a rec - ognised form of antitrust injury and that DirecTV had plausibly alleged that its injuries flowed directly from the output-reducing effects of the alleged horizontal price-fixing conspiracy. The court further held that DirecTV plausibly qualified as an efficient enforcer of the antitrust laws because it was the direct target of the alleged conspiracy and its injuries were neither derivative nor speculative. 1.2 Recent Developments In recent years, US antitrust authorities, state attor - neys general, and private plaintiffs have aggressively challenged proposed mergers and alleged anti-com - petitive practices in a wide array of industries. Many recent notable cases have either found antitrust vio - lations or resulted in settlements. In addition to the private cases discussed in 1.1 Current Framework for Private Antitrust Litigation , US antitrust authorities have brought several cases as well. In United States v Live Nation Entertainment , Inc , the Department of Justice and a coalition of state attor - neys general challenged alleged monopolisation in
live event promotion and ticket markets. In March 2026, the Department of Justice announced a settle - ment that included financial penalties, asset divesti - ture, increased platform accessibility, and fee caps. A majority of states continued to pursue the case inde - pendently and successfully obtained a jury verdict in April 2026. In Federal Trade Commission v Edwards Lifesciences Corp and JenaValve Technology Inc , the FTC success - fully blocked a proposed acquisition involving com - peting developers of medical devices used to treat heart conditions. Regulators have also focused on agreements and practices involving the exchange of confidential data. In United States v Agri Stats , the Department of Jus - tice alleged that a hub-and-spoke-style information- sharing scheme was utilised to collect and redistrib - ute detailed, non-public pricing, cost and output data among competing meat processors. In May 2026, a settlement was reached to restrict data-reporting practices and increase transparency. Legislative developments are discussed further in 13.1 Legislative Trends and Other Developments . 2. Private Antitrust Claims: Basis and Procedure 2.1 Statutory Basis Section 4 of the Clayton Act authorises damages suits in federal court by “any person” – which includes corporations and other legal entities – “who shall be injured in his business or property by reason of any - thing forbidden in the antitrust laws” (15 USC Sections 7; 15[a]). The federal antitrust laws underlying private damages claims include, perhaps most prominently, Section 1 of the Sherman Antitrust Act (prohibiting concerted action that unreasonably restrains trade) and Section 2 (prohibiting single-firm conduct that maintains or creates a dominant position by unrea - sonably excluding competitors from a market). State antitrust laws vary, but broadly confer private rights of action on a similar basis.
245 A NTITRUST LI T IGATI O N 2026
CHAMBERS.COM
Powered by FlippingBook