Florida Attorney General Opens Investigation into PBM and Pharmacy Parent Company Over Alleged Anticompetitive Pharmacy Practices

By Christopher H. CaseyJonathan L. SwicharBradley A. Wasser and Kirk Williams McLeod

On June 23, 2026, Florida Attorney General James Uthmeier issued a civil investigative demand to CVS Health Corporation, the parent company of both the Caremark pharmacy benefit manager and hundreds of CVS retail pharmacies in Florida, opening a civil investigation into alleged anticompetitive and unfair pharmacy practices. The investigation is the latest in a wave of state and federal actions targeting the vertically integrated business models of the nation’s largest PBMs.

Read the full Alert on the Duane Morris LLP website.

DOJ’s Proposed Settlement with Property Manager Targets Algorithmic Pricing Coordination in Rental Housing

By Sean P. McConnellBrian H. PandyaChristopher H. Casey and Kirk Williams McLeod

On July 6, 2026, the U.S. Department of Justice’s Antitrust Division filed a proposed consent decree with Willow Bridge Property Company LLC in connection with its ongoing enforcement action against RealPage Inc. and several large property management companies. The settlement resolves allegations that Willow Bridge violated Section 1 of the Sherman Act by sharing competitively sensitive data with competitors through RealPage’s algorithmic pricing tools and by agreeing to align rental pricing with competing landlords. Under the proposed final judgment, the parties consented to the settlement’s entry without the taking of testimony, without trial or adjudication of any issue of fact or law, and without the final judgment constituting evidence against or an admission by any party as to any issue of fact or law in the action.

Read the full Alert on the Duane Morris LLP website.

Egg Price-Fixing Settlements Signal DOJ’s Intensifying Focus on Commodity Benchmark Manipulation

By Christopher H. CaseyKatherine Speegle and Kirk Williams McLeod

On June 29, 2026, the U.S. Department of Justice and 17 states filed a civil antitrust complaint and simultaneously entered proposed consent judgments with three major egg producers alleging that the defendants conspired to manipulate Urner Barry’s daily egg price quotations by coordinating bids on the Egg Clearinghouse Inc. platform between June 2022 and March 2025. The case marks a significant enforcement action that illustrates how federal enforcers are approaching benchmark manipulation in concentrated commodity markets.

Read the full Alert on the Duane Morris LLP website.

Healthcare Consolidation and Competition State Legislation Tracker

By Sean P. McConnellNina KalandadzeAnnamarie Hufford-Bucklin and Stephanie Sun                                                                               

State legislatures across the country are reshaping the legal landscape for healthcare market transactions at an unprecedented pace—and with significant variation from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. Laws expanding premerger visibility into healthcare deals, requiring greater ownership and affiliation transparency, restricting private equity involvement in clinical enterprises, recalibrating certificate of need frameworks and limiting post-employment noncompete agreements for physicians and other clinicians are proliferating at the state level. While federal scrutiny of healthcare transactions remains significant, state-level legislation increasingly imposes independent obligations that may alter deal planning, governance structures and employment arrangements.

To support planning and compliance, Duane Morris has created an interactive map tracking enacted state measures aimed at tightening oversight of healthcare consolidation, limiting noncompete agreements and curbing private equity influence.

Read the full Alert and view the interactive map on the Duane Morris LLP website.

Chambers USA Recognizes Duane Morris Antitrust Division and Attorneys

Duane Morris LLP is pleased to announce that Chambers USA has recognized Duane Morris’ Antitrust Division and attorneys.

Here’s what clients are saying about our antitrust attorneys:

  • “The team knows the area of law very well. They are very good communicators and keep me informed.”

Pennsylvania

Antitrust

Pennsylvania Attorneys

Edward G. Biester III: Antitrust

Sean P. McConnell: Antitrust

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.

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.

© 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