Antitrust Litigation

Antitrust litigation is what Bona Law does. As an antitrust boutique, our attorneys combine deep command of federal and state antitrust and competition laws with years of experience litigating complex antitrust cases in courts across the country. We do the work that decides these cases — framing the antitrust theories, preparing and defending dispositive motions, driving discovery efficiently, and building the essential factual and economic record. When you approach a case as if it's headed to trial, it forces discipline: you deal with what matters and let go of what doesn't. That discipline is what resolves cases most efficiently — with or without a trial.

Our record reflects that focus. In matters where we have prosecuted claims on behalf of clients, we recently won a Tenth Circuit decision reinstating Sherman Act Section 2 monopolization claims and a Ninth Circuit ruling that preserved a client's group-boycott claims. In a separate Section 2 case, we secured a favorable settlement and injunctive relief for a software developer against a rival that controlled nearly all of its market — resolving the matter on terms that restored our client's access to customers. And in an unusual engagement that reflects the trust placed in the firm, a state attorney general retained us as outside counsel to prosecute antitrust claims on the state's behalf, resulting in a significant settlement.

On the defense side, we have represented companies in some of the country's largest antitrust class action MDLs and defeated class certification in a major electronics-cartel case. We recently won summary judgment for a turkey-processor defendant in a nationwide price-fixing MDL, obtaining dismissal of our client from the case.

The Bona Law team combines experience from many of the nation’s biggest law firms, with service at the DOJ Antitrust Division, state attorneys general offices, and the European Commission. And several Bona Law attorneys clerked for federal courts, including federal appellate courts. Additionally, our team includes attorneys with extensive in-house experience, including Chief Antitrust Counsel at AT&T and longtime antitrust counsel at General Motors.

Our attorneys regularly appear in federal and state courts representing clients in a full range of criminal and civil competition matters — cartel and price-fixing cases, bid rigging cases, no-poaching employment cases, monopolization and exclusionary-conduct disputes, distribution and pricing claims, class actions and MDLs, federal and state enforcement actions, government investigations, and appeals, to name a few examples. We represent defendants, we prosecute affirmative claims for companies harmed by anticompetitive conduct, and we serve as dedicated antitrust co-counsel to firms that need a competition specialist on the team.

Bona Law also publishes The Antitrust Attorney Blog, which is read by in-house counsel and government enforcers worldwide and reflects the depth we bring to every matter.

What We Do

• Cartel and price-fixing litigation — Sherman Act Section 1 conspiracies, bid-rigging, market and customer allocation, and information-exchange claims, on both the defense and affirmative-recovery sides.
• Monopolization and exclusionary conduct — Section 2 monopolization and attempted monopolization, refusals to deal, exclusive dealing, tying, loyalty programs, and predatory pricing.
• Distribution, pricing, and Robinson-Patman — resale-price maintenance, minimum-advertised-price policies, exclusive distribution, and price-discrimination disputes.
• Class action and MDL defense — lead counsel and co-counsel defending against direct- and indirect-purchaser classes, including defeating class certification.
• Opt-out and affirmative recovery — prosecuting individual damages claims for companies that opt out of class settlements.
• State attorney general defense — defending companies in investigations and enforcement actions brought by state attorneys general under the Cartwright Act, the Donnelly Act, and other state antitrust laws.
• Criminal antitrust defense and investigations — representing companies and executives in DOJ price-fixing, bid-rigging, and no-poach prosecutions and grand-jury investigations.
• Antitrust federalism and appellate advocacy — one of the nation's leading practices on the state-action immunity doctrine and an experienced appellate group that has participated in significant antitrust cases as both a party and an amicus.

Appellate Antitrust

We handle antitrust appeals — as appellant, appellee, and amicus. Recent published antitrust decisions include the Ninth Circuit’s PharmacyChecker.com v. LegitScript and the Tenth Circuit’s Chase Manufacturing v. Johns Manville, and we have filed amicus briefs in the U.S. Supreme Court’s leading state-action cases, including N.C. State Board of Dental Examiners v. FTC and Salt River v. Tesla Energy. Learn more about our Appellate Litigation practice.

Opt-Out and Affirmative Recovery for Corporate Clients

If your company participates in a market affected by an antitrust conspiracy, staying in the class may not result in the optimal recovery. Companies with significant purchases can opt out of a class settlement and pursue their own damages claim, on their own timeline and terms — often resulting in a recovery that is a multiple of what the class would have recovered.

We are well positioned to prosecute such opt-out claims because we litigate antitrust on both sides. We know how these cases are defended, which makes us more effective when we bring them.

Flexible fee arrangements. For appropriate affirmative-recovery matters, we will consider hybrid and other alternative fee arrangements, so our incentives align with yours. Contact us to discuss whether opting out makes sense for your company.

Antitrust Co-Counsel

As an antitrust-focused boutique, we are regularly called upon to team with firms that have litigation or industry expertise but lack a dedicated antitrust group. We integrate into existing teams in roles ranging from strategic advisor to lead trial counsel. Learn more about Antitrust Co-Counsel.

Representative Experience

Although our attorneys’ experience spans decades—including time at large firms, government agencies, and major corporations—the following matters were litigated by Bona Law. Results depend on the facts and circumstances of each case.

Monopolization and Exclusionary Conduct

• Zulily LLC v. Amazon.com, Inc. (W.D. Wash.). Represent Zulily in a Section 2 monopolization action alleging that Amazon used anti-discounting practices and anticompetitive agreements to suppress retail price competition and to target Zulily. The core monopolization and anti-discounting claims survived Amazon’s motion to dismiss.

• Lucasys, Inc. v. PowerPlan, Inc. (N.D. Ga.). Represented Lucasys, a software competitor, in a Section 2 monopolization case against PowerPlan, which controlled roughly 99% of the utility-management software market. After more than four years of litigation — including defeating PowerPlan’s trade-secret counterclaims and moving affirmatively for summary judgment on the antitrust claims — the case resolved in a $24 million settlement plus injunctive relief protecting Lucasys’s access to customers.

• Chase Manufacturing, Inc. (d/b/a Thermal Pipe Shields) v. Johns Manville Corp. (D. Colo.; 10th Cir.). Section 2 monopolization in the calcium-silicate (“calsil”) mechanical- insulation market, where the defendant supplied nearly 100% of the market and was alleged to have threatened customers who bought from a new entrant. Bona Law won a published Tenth Circuit reversal reinstating the antitrust claims (with the U.S. Department of Justice participating as amicus). The client ultimately prevailed on the merits.

• PharmacyChecker.com v. LegitScript, LLC (D. Or.; 9th Cir.). Group-boycott action alleging that a verification rival and a network of industry groups conspired to block PharmacyChecker from the online-pharmacy verification and price-comparison markets. The firm won a published Ninth Circuit decision allowing the claims to proceed and later defeated LegitScript’s RICO and Lanham Act counterclaims.

• Antitrust Counterclaims Against T-Mobile (C.D. Cal.). Represented a bidder for 2.5 GHz wireless-spectrum leases asserting antitrust counterclaims against T-Mobile, alleging monopsonization of the spectrum market through exclusionary lease provisions, defensive license purchases, and sham litigation — under Sherman Act Sections 1 and 2 and the Cartwright Act, and seeking treble damages and injunctive relief.

Class Action and MDL Defense

• In re Turkey Antitrust Litigation (N.D. Ill.). Defense of Foster Farms, a processor defendant, in a nationwide turkey-processing price-fixing class action. In July 2026, the court granted Foster Farms summary judgment on all claims and dismissed it from the case, finding insufficient evidence that Foster Farms agreed with competitors to restrict turkey supply, while other processor defendants were ordered to stand trial.

• In re Capacitors Antitrust Litigation (N.D. Cal.). Defense of a Japanese capacitor manufacturer in a major electronics price-fixing MDL; defeated the indirect-purchaser plaintiffs’ motion for class certification at the trial-court level and handled the Rule 23(f) appeal.

• In re Disposable Contact Lens Antitrust Litigation (M.D. Fla.). Defense of one of the nation’s largest online contact-lens retailers in a nationwide price-fixing MDL involving uniform-pricing policies. Persuaded plaintiffs to drop client from case.

• Markson v. CRST International, Inc. (C.D. Cal.). Defense of a national trucking company in a Section 1 “no-poach” class action alleging driver wage suppression — one of the leading no-poach matters in the transportation sector.

• Egg-Producer State Price-Gouging Class Actions (multiple courts). Defense of a major egg producer against class actions alleging violations of state price-gouging laws across overlapping state-law regimes.

Cartel, Price-Fixing, and Concerted Conduct

• People v. Vitol, Inc., et al. (S.F. Super. Ct.). Outside trial counsel for the California Attorney General in a commodity-price-manipulation action against global gasoline trading firms under the Cartwright Act and Unfair Competition Law; resolved in a $50 million settlement. The engagement reflects the unusual posture of a state attorney general retaining a private antitrust boutique to prosecute claims on the government’s behalf.

• Ready-Mix Concrete Price-Fixing and Group Boycott (N.D. Ga.). Represent plaintiff ready-mix concrete producers in a federal antitrust action against the alleged ringleader of related cement and ready-mix cartels in the southeastern United States, where the colluding firms’ combined share exceeded 80%. The DOJ separately entered a deferred- prosecution agreement under which the lead defendant admitted to a price-fixing and bid-rigging conspiracy and paid a $20 million criminal fine.

• San Diego Association of Realtors v. Sandicor, Inc., et al. (S.D. Cal.). Section 1 conspiracy action against a regional multiple-listing service and two competing associations alleging that they withheld access to MLS data and used the MLS as a competitive weapon; the court sustained the antitrust claims over motions to dismiss.

Criminal Antitrust and Government Investigations

• DOJ Grand-Jury Price-Fixing Investigation (N.D. Ill.). Defended a company under a DOJ Antitrust Division grand-jury subpoena investigating alleged price-fixing of medical supplies and persuaded the Division not to seek an indictment.

• Criminal Bid-Rigging Defense (D. Minn.). Defense of an individual charged with bid-rigging in federal government auctions, challenging the government’s charging theory and the application of per se Sherman Act principles.

• Criminal No-Poach Leniency Cooperation (D. Nev.). Represented an individual in a federal criminal no-poach investigation involving healthcare workers, including cooperation tied to a former employer’s DOJ leniency petition.

• United States v. Guillory (9th Cir.). Appeal of a criminal antitrust bid-rigging conviction arising from a DOJ investigation into bid-rigging at real-estate foreclosure auctions.

Antitrust Federalism and State-Action Immunity

Bona Law is one of the nation’s leading practices on the antitrust state-action immunity doctrine, and has appeared as amicus in every major U.S. Supreme Court state-action case of the past decade.

• AmeriCare MedServices, Inc. v. City of Anaheim, et al. (C.D. Cal.; 9th Cir.; U.S. Supreme Court cert petition). Twelve federal antitrust actions against Orange County municipalities for monopolizing prehospital emergency and non-emergency ambulance markets.

• Western Star Hospital Authority (Metro Health) v. City of Richmond (E.D. Va.; 4th Cir.). Section 2 monopolization action challenging a city’s grant of an exclusive ambulance franchise.

• Petrie v. Virginia Board of Medicine (E.D. Va.; 4th Cir.). Section 1 action against a state licensing board dominated by active market participants — squarely within the N.C. State Board of Dental Examiners v. FTC framework.

Antitrust Litigation Resources

Selected analysis from The Antitrust Attorney Blog and our Legal Resources:

Monopolization and Section 2

• What Are the Elements for a Monopolization Claim Under the Federal Antitrust Laws?

• Beyond the DOJ Complaint: Exclusionary-Conduct Theories in the Apple Ecosystem

• How Phhhoto v. Meta Turned the Nascent-Competitor Theory into a Weapon Against Big Tech

• What the Fire Apparatus MDL Teaches Every Acquisition-Driven Company About Section 2 Risk

Price-fixing, bid-rigging, market allocation, and group boycotts