USA Trends and Developments Contributed by: William Lavery, Joseph Ostoyich, Dodi Allocca and Timothy Lyons, Clifford Chance LLP
bar for plaintiffs challenging data-access restrictions in platform markets. The litigation remains ongoing. Algorithmic pricing and revenue enhancement software cases Federal enforcement and private litigation have increasingly targeted algorithmic tools that aggregate competitively sensitive data to generate pricing rec - ommendations, particularly in housing and hospital - ity. In November 2025, the DOJ secured settlements with RealPage and several major landlords restricting parties from using competitors’ non-public data in rent-setting software, reflecting the position that algo - rithmic systems can facilitate unlawful co-ordination when they operationalise shared pricing information. Private litigation has produced divergent results. In the hotel sector, the Ninth Circuit held in Gibson v Cendyn that allegations that competitors submitted price information to a common platform and used it for pricing recommendations were insufficient to sup - port an inference of concerted action at the pleading stage. By contrast, a federal district court evaluating a complaint against Yardi’s property management soft - ware found plausible allegations that lessors entered into express, individual contracts with Yardi in cir - cumstances that showed their intent to participate in a concerted scheme or plan to fix rental prices and restrain trade. Analogous theories have been asserted against com - panies in the healthcare sector, including lawsuits by plaintiffs and state attorneys general against Multi - Plan (now Claritev), indicating that antitrust scrutiny of revenue-maximisation software is likely to persist across multiple industries. College Sports Since receiving final approval in June 2025, the land - mark settlement in In re College Athlete NIL Litigation (or the “House Settlement”) has remained the focal point of continuing litigation over the future structure of college athletics. Multiple groups of athletes have appealed the settlement’s approval to the Ninth Cir - cuit, asserting procedural objections and objections under Title IX and antitrust law. Questions about the scope of permissible name, image and likeness (NIL) activity under the settlement have been the subject of
post-approval litigation. The NIL framework also faces challenges outside the settlement proceedings, with Division I players alleging that National Collegiate Ath - letic Association (NCAA) members have entered into a horizontal agreement to suppress athlete compen - sation through revenue-sharing limits and other NIL- related restrictions. Notwithstanding these objections, appeals and collateral proceedings, the settlement’s forward-looking provisions, including a new revenue- sharing framework permitting participating institutions to compensate athletes directly, have proceeded. Courts are also confronting antitrust challenges to NCAA eligibility restrictions, which plaintiffs argue are improper restraints on participation in, and compen - sation from, labour markets for Division I athletes. Plaintiffs have met with mixed results to date, with courts diverging on both the extent to which the chal - lenged eligibility restrictions may be unlawful under the antitrust laws and the extent to which lost playing time may constitute irreparable harm necessary for a preliminary injunction. The cases’ outcomes remain dependent on the specific rule at issue and the factual record developed in each case, and because athletic eligibility disputes are inherently time-sensitive, cases become moot before appellate courts can review the case below and provide broader doctrinal guidance. Federal policymakers have become increasingly involved in these issues. In April 2026, President Trump issued Executive Order 14400, Urgent Nation - al Action to Save College Sports, the most signifi - cant federal effort to date to establish a nationwide framework governing athlete compensation, eligibility, transfers and NIL-related activity. The order advocates uniform eligibility and transfer standards, encourages restrictions on pay-for-play arrangements and certain NIL practices, directs federal regulators to use avail - able enforcement tools, and contemplates universi - ties’ compliance having implications for federal fund - ing. Although the order does not alter existing law, it reflects growing federal interest in the regulation of college athletics and may spur further litigation over NCAA governance.
261 A NTITRUST LI T IGATI O N 2026
CHAMBERS.COM
Powered by FlippingBook