States Win Antitrust Case Against Live Nation: Lessons from a Landmark Antitrust Case

On April 15, 2026, a federal jury found that Live Nation Entertainment and its Ticketmaster subsidiary violated federal and state antitrust laws. The verdict holds critical lessons for any business relying on vertical integration, exclusive contracts, or data-driven strategies.

The jury concluded that Live Nation unlawfully monopolized multiple live entertainment markets by leveraging its dominant position in concert promotion, venue ownership, and ticketing to foreclose competition. Key evidence showed Ticketmaster controls approximately 86% of primary ticketing at major concert venues, while Live Nation’s promotion arm handles roughly 70%. Internal communications—including references to using a “velvet hammer” against competitors and exerting power over concert-goers by “robbing them blind”—proved particularly damaging.

Continue reading “States Win Antitrust Case Against Live Nation: Lessons from a Landmark Antitrust Case”

Eight State Attorneys General Challenge TV Merger After Federal Approval – What It Means for Your Next Deal

State attorneys general are increasingly challenging federal antitrust settlements and merger approvals—most recently in the $6.2 billion Nexstar/Tegna broadcast television transaction. In addition, congressional Democrats have proposed expanding the Tunney Act to enhance transparency, empower states to continue abandoned federal cases, and constrain merger closings during judicial review. For companies planning strategic transactions, these developments signal that federal clearance alone may no longer end deal risk.

Read the full Alert on the Duane Morris LLP website.

Old HSR Form Returns as Fifth Circuit Rejects FTC’s Bid to Preserve Overhauled HSR Merger Filing Form During Appeal

The FTC’s expanded Hart-Scott-Rodino (HSR) premerger notification form is now no longer required for reportable transactions after the Fifth Circuit denied the FTC’s motion for a stay pending appeal last week, meaning merging parties may immediately revert to the prior, less burdensome HSR filing form.

Key Takeaways

  • Immediate filing relief. Merging parties may now file HSR notifications using the prior, less burdensome form. The FTC has stated it is updating its systems and will continue to accept filings under either form.
  • Signal on the merits. The Fifth Circuit’s refusal to stay the lower court’s order during the appeal may indicate skepticism toward the FTC’s arguments, although the merits appeal remains pending.
  • Continued uncertainty. The FTC’s appeal is still active. If the Fifth Circuit ultimately reverses the district court, the expanded form could be reinstated, potentially with a compliance grace period. Parties should monitor developments closely.
  • Practical planning. Deal teams preparing HSR filings should coordinate with antitrust counsel to determine which form to use. Filing under the prior form will generally be less time-intensive and costly, but parties should consider whether voluntarily using the new form may offer any strategic benefit for transactions likely to receive scrutiny.
Continue reading “Old HSR Form Returns as Fifth Circuit Rejects FTC’s Bid to Preserve Overhauled HSR Merger Filing Form During Appeal”

The Federal Trade Commission Forms Healthcare Task Force to Address Competition in Healthcare Markets

The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) has formed a Healthcare Task Force to focus on competition and consumer protection issues in healthcare markets and to develop policy recommendations aimed at improving healthcare market practices. The memorandum establishing the Task Force describes its mandate, structure and intended workstreams.

Implications for Healthcare Market Participants

The Task Force is intended to provide a more coordinated and systematic framework for the FTC’s work in this sector, aligning enforcement, research and policy to address emerging and persistent issues in healthcare competition and consumer protection.

The memorandum signals that the FTC will continue to prioritize healthcare as a core enforcement and policy area. Market participants – including providers, payers, intermediaries, and other healthcare entities – can expect:

  • Continued scrutiny of transactions, joint ventures and contracting practices that may affect competition.
  • Ongoing attention to representations and business practices that may mislead or harm healthcare consumers.
  • Increased emphasis on policy development and advocacy that may shape future regulatory and enforcement approaches in healthcare markets.
Continue reading “The Federal Trade Commission Forms Healthcare Task Force to Address Competition in Healthcare Markets”

Healthcare Consolidation and Competition State Legislation Tracker: 2025 in Review

State legislatures are increasingly active in reshaping healthcare markets, with 2025 marking a particularly aggressive year for legislative action. Across many jurisdictions, new laws expand premerger visibility into healthcare deals, require greater ownership and affiliation transparency, restrict private equity and management service organization involvement in clinical enterprises, recalibrate certificate‑of‑need (CON) frameworks and curb post‑employment noncompete for physicians and other clinicians. Several measures also address patient‑facing transparency and communications. While federal scrutiny of healthcare transactions and practices remains significant, new state legislation is presenting most immediate changes to deal planning, governance and employment structures. Read the full Alert on the Duane Morris website.

Senate Democrats Introduce Sweeping Meatpacking Industry Legislation with Significant Antitrust Implications

On March 5, 2026, Senate Democrats introduced legislation that would fundamentally restructure the U.S. meatpacking industry. The Family Grocery and Farmer Relief Act proposes mandatory divestitures, cross-protein operation bans, foreign ownership restrictions and new limitations on vertical supply relationships—changes that could affect virtually every major player in the sector.

Read the full Alert on the Duane Morris LLP website.

California’s AB 1776 Would Significantly Expand State Antitrust Law

The California Legislature is currently considering a bill that would substantially expand the scope and enforcement mechanisms of California’s antitrust regime. On January 30, 2026, the California Law Revision Commission officially approved a final legislative proposal to broaden the state’s antitrust statute, the Cartwright Act, to include single-firm conduct and to allow state enforcers to go beyond the federal Sherman Act. While the bill, AB 1776, remains under consideration in the state Legislature, it reflects a broader trend toward more aggressive antitrust regulation and enforcement at the state level, both in California and nationally. Read the Alert on the Duane Morris LLP website.

DOJ’s Antitrust Division and State of Ohio Sue Healthcare Provider OhioHealth Over Steering Provisions in Its Contracts with Health Insurers

On February 20, 2026, the United States Department of Justice and the State of Ohio sued OhioHealth Corporation, a non-profit that operates healthcare facilities and physician groups throughout Ohio, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio. The complaint alleges that OhioHealth has market power in the Columbus, Ohio area, where it operates its flagship Riverside Methodist Hospital and other facilities. The plaintiffs assert that OhioHealth has shored up its market power through anticompetitive conduct, in violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act and Ohio’s Valentine Act.

DOJ and the State of Ohio allege that OhioHealth’s agreements with insurers limit insurers’ ability to offer different types of “steered plans,” or steering provisions, including 1) “tiered plans,” which charge insurance subscribers less when they opt to use a more limited panel of cost-effective providers for a particular service, 2) “center of excellence plans,” which similarly charge patients less when they choose to obtain care from a center of excellence provider for a particular service, 3) “narrow network plans,” which include fewer providers and typically have lower premiums for employers and subscribers, 4) plans that include “site of service steering,” which lower costs for subscribers when they seek care from less expensive facilities (e.g., from an ambulatory center rather than a hospital), 5) plans with “reference-based pricing,” which offers subscribers a set reimbursement based on a calculation of the market average, and 6) plans with “active transparency,” in which insurers contact patients to inform them of less costly options prior to a particular procedure or appointment.

The complaint further alleges that OhioHealth collects higher reimbursement rates from insurers than surrounding hospitals, despite offering similar or lower quality care, and that its conduct allegedly allows it to continue collecting supracompetitive reimbursement rates by dampening competition between healthcare providers. Plaintiffs also allege that OhioHealth’s agreements with insurers harm consumers by reducing competition between hospitals to attract patients and eliminating product choices that are available to patients in other parts of the country and would otherwise exist in the Columbus area.

The DOJ and State of Ohio allege that the product market is the sale of inpatient general acute care hospital services to commercial payors and the geographic markets include 1) the area comprising Delaware and Franklin Counties and 2) the Columbus Metropolitan Statistical Area.

Stay tuned for updates on how the parties and court approach steering provisions in this market in the wake of Ohio v. American Express.

Fifth Circuit Administratively Stays Ruling Vacating FTC’s Overhauled HSR Filing Requirements 

The Fifth Circuit’s order keeps the Federal Trade Commission’s expanded Hart‑Scott‑Rodino (“HSR”) premerger notification rule in effect for now and accelerates briefing on whether a stay should remain in place pending appeal.  Companies planning or undertaking HSR‑reportable transactions must continue to comply with the 2025 expanded filing form unless and until the Fifth Circuit orders otherwise. 

Key Takeaways

  • The Fifth Circuit has granted an administrative stay of the Eastern District of Texas judgment that vacated the FTC’s 2024 HSR overhaul rule. 
  • The stay remains in place “until further order” of the Fifth Circuit, preserving the status quo while the court considers the FTC’s motion for a stay pending appeal. 
  • Appellees’ (the business groups’) response to the stay motion is due February 23, 2026; the FTC’s reply is due February 26, 2026. 
  • For the moment, the expanded HSR form that took effect in February 2025 remains operative, and merging parties should prepare to comply with its significantly more burdensome disclosure requirements. 
  • The appeal will address core questions about the FTC’s statutory authority under the HSR Act, the adequacy of its cost‑benefit analysis, and the standard for nationwide vacatur and stays of agency rules. 
Continue reading “Fifth Circuit Administratively Stays Ruling Vacating FTC’s Overhauled HSR Filing Requirements “

Read the Duane Morris Antitrust Class Action Review 2026

By Gerald L. Maatman, Jr., Jennifer A. Riley and Sean McConnell

Class action litigation involving antitrust claims had several key developments in 2025, despite a relative lack of actual verdicts. Because antitrust remedies often allow recovery of treble damages, the incentive to settle these cases is often paramount. Additionally, plaintiffs are entitled to reasonable attorneys’ fees that may be substantial because of the complexity of this kind of litigation. As a result, most antitrust class actions are settled before trial, and one of the most crucial phases in these cases is class certification. Thus, the order granting or denying a motion to certify a class in these cases is critical.

Click here to bookmark or download a copy of the Antitrust Class Action Review – 2026 e-book.

© 2009- Duane Morris LLP. Duane Morris is a registered service mark of Duane Morris LLP.

The opinions expressed on this blog are those of the author and are not to be construed as legal advice.

Proudly powered by WordPress