USA Trends and Developments Contributed by: William Lavery, Joseph Ostoyich, Dodi Allocca and Timothy Lyons, Clifford Chance LLP
against Meta Platforms. The FTC had alleged that Meta had unlawfully maintained monopoly power in a market for “personal social networking” services, composed primarily of Facebook, Instagram and Snapchat, through its acquisitions of Instagram and WhatsApp. In his decision, Judge Boasberg held as a threshold matter that the FTC was required to dem - onstrate that Meta currently held monopoly power in a relevant market, not merely that it had held monopoly power at some previous point. Judge Boasberg then ruled that the record did not show that Meta currently possessed monopoly power. The court found instead that Meta competed in a broader market for users’ time and attention that included competitors such as TikTok and YouTube, based on empirical evidence that consumers treat Meta’s apps as substitutes with TikTok and YouTube, and that Meta did not possess monopoly power in this broader market. The FTC has appealed the decision to the DC Circuit. X v Apple (ND Tex) In August 2025, X and xAI sued Apple and OpenAI in the Northern District of Texas, alleging a conspiracy to monopolise generative AI chatbots and smartphone software through Apple’s exclusive ChatGPT integra - tion in Apple Intelligence. The complaint alleged that the companies’ partnership, due to Apple’s power in the smartphone market and OpenAI’s power in the generative AI chatbot market, foreclosed rivals (par - ticularly xAI’s Grok AI) from meaningful access to the iPhone ecosystem. The court denied the defendants’ motion to dismiss, and the case is currently undergo - ing discovery. Real Estate Antitrust enforcement and private litigation have extended into real estate technology and data mar - kets, with recent cases testing the boundaries of plat - form competition, two-sided market analysis, exclu - sive dealing doctrine, and the use of algorithmic tools
advertising for multifamily rental properties, to termi - nate its existing multifamily rental property advertising contracts and transition those customers to Zillow, and to source listings from Zillow exclusively going forward. The FTC alleges that the arrangement con - stitutes an unlawful restraint of trade under Section 1 of the Sherman Act and an illegal acquisition under Section 7 of the Clayton Act. The defendants moved to dismiss, arguing that the FTC’s allegations improperly focused on the agree - ment’s effects on landlords and property manag - ers while ignoring benefits to renters, relying on the Supreme Court’s two-sided market framework in Ohio v American Express (2018). The court denied the motion in May 2026, holding that renters, who browse these platforms for free, are distinct from pay - ing advertisers and that the two-sided market frame - work therefore did not apply. The parties announced a settlement on 24 August 2026, the same day that a bench trial was set to begin. Among other provisions, the settlement requires Red - fin to re-enter the internet listing services market; provides for Redfin to continue syndicating Zillow’s listings on a non-exclusive basis; and requires Zil - low to remove restrictions on Redfin’s ability to sell advertising and to facilitate Redfin’s hiring of Zillow employees. CoStar Group v Commercial Real Estate Exchange, Inc In CoStar Group v Commercial Real Estate Exchange , Inc , the Ninth Circuit revived antitrust counterclaims brought by CREXi, a competitor to CoStar’s commer - cial real estate listing and data platforms. CoStar had sued CREXi for copyright infringement in 2020; CREXi responded with counterclaims alleging that CoStar used contractual restrictions and technological barri - ers to foreclose competition in commercial real estate data markets. The district court dismissed the anti - trust counterclaims, but the Ninth Circuit reversed in June 2025, holding that CREXi plausibly alleged both monopoly power and anti-competitive conduct. Nota - bly, the court characterised the alleged restrictions as a form of de facto exclusive dealing rather than a uni - lateral refusal to deal – a distinction that may lower the
to set or co-ordinate pricing. FTC v Zillow & Redfin (ED Va)
In September 2025, the FTC and the attorneys gen - eral of five states filed suit against Zillow Group and Redfin Corporation in the Eastern District of Virginia, alleging that the defendants entered into a USD100 million deal in which Zillow paid Redfin to stop selling
260 A NTITRUST LI T IGATI O N 2026
CHAMBERS.COM
Powered by FlippingBook