Antitrust
Antitrust and Competition Litigation
Dynamis LLP litigates high-stakes antitrust cases — monopolization, price-fixing, and algorithmic collusion — in federal and state courts nationwide.
Antitrust cases are won on three things: a coherent theory of the market, command of the economics, and the credibility to try the case to a jury. Dynamis brings all three. Our lawyers include former federal prosecutors who built and dismantled complex economic cases for the government, and who now bring that same discipline to some of the most closely watched competition disputes in the country.
We are currently lead or co-counsel in two cutting-edge antitrust matters: a Sherman Act monopolization suit against Activision Blizzard over its control of the professional Call of Duty market, and a class action challenging algorithmic gasoline price-fixing across California — among the first cases brought under California's new law governing pricing algorithms.
With offices in Boston, New York, Miami, Los Angeles, and New Jersey, we handle antitrust matters in federal and state courts nationwide, on behalf of plaintiffs, classes, and defendants alike. Learn more in our guide to complex civil litigation.
We are not afraid to take on the largest companies in the country, often represented by the largest law firms in the country. That is what antitrust enforcement requires. Reach out to Eric Rosen or Constantine Economides to discuss your case today.
What Antitrust Law Covers
The antitrust laws exist to protect competition — and the consumers, workers, and businesses that competition is supposed to serve. They reach two basic kinds of conduct: agreements among competitors that restrain trade, and the acquisition or abuse of monopoly power by a single firm. The framework is federal and state, civil and criminal, and it is enforced by the government and by private litigants.
Section 1 of the Sherman Act — Agreements That Restrain Trade
Section 1 prohibits agreements that unreasonably restrain trade. Some restraints are per se illegal — meaning no justification will save them — including price-fixing, bid-rigging, market and customer allocation, and agreements among employers to fix wages or refuse to hire one another's workers. Other restraints are judged under the "rule of reason," which weighs the anticompetitive harm against any genuine procompetitive benefit. A Section 1 claim does not require a signed contract or a smoky back room; it requires only a "meeting of the minds," which can be proven through conduct, data exchange, and the surrounding economic circumstances.
Section 2 of the Sherman Act — Monopolization
Section 2 prohibits the acquisition or maintenance of monopoly power through exclusionary conduct, rather than through a better product or business acumen. Monopolization claims often turn on conduct such as acquiring nascent competitors, refusing to deal, denying rivals access to an essential facility, or leveraging control over one market — including intellectual property — to dominate a second. Proving a Section 2 case demands a carefully defined relevant market, a rigorous showing of market power, and a theory of harm grounded in real economic effects.
The Clayton Act — Mergers and the Private Right of Action
The Clayton Act reaches mergers and acquisitions that may substantially lessen competition, as well as exclusive dealing and tying arrangements. Just as important, it arms private litigants: Section 4 lets injured parties recover three times their actual damages plus attorneys' fees, and Section 16 authorizes injunctive relief. Treble damages are what make private antitrust enforcement a meaningful deterrent — and a meaningful recovery.
State Antitrust Law — the Cartwright Act, Algorithmic Pricing, and More
State antitrust statutes often reach further than federal law. California's Cartwright Act prohibits combinations that fix or control prices, and California's Assembly Bill 325 — effective January 1, 2026 — makes explicit that using or distributing a common pricing algorithm to restrain trade is just as illegal as old-fashioned price-fixing. New York's Donnelly Act, the Illinois Antitrust Act, and California's Unfair Competition Law (Section 17200) supply additional theories, remedies, and, in many cases, treble damages and restitution.
Criminal Antitrust Enforcement
Hardcore cartel conduct — price-fixing, bid-rigging, and market allocation — is a felony prosecuted by the Department of Justice's Antitrust Division. Individuals face prison; companies face fines reaching hundreds of millions of dollars. The Division's Leniency Program rewards the first conspirator to self-report, which makes early, sophisticated counsel critical the moment a company learns it may be exposed. In recent years the Division has extended criminal enforcement into labor markets, charging wage-fixing and no-poach agreements as criminal restraints of trade.
Treble Damages and Follow-On Civil Litigation
A government enforcement action is frequently the beginning, not the end. Once the DOJ, the FTC, or a state attorney general establishes a violation, private plaintiffs can bring "follow-on" civil suits to recover treble damages for the harm that conduct caused. Reading a government action correctly — and building an independent civil case that reaches conduct the government did not — is one of the highest-value services an antitrust litigator can provide.
How Dynamis Litigates Antitrust Cases
Antitrust is not a volume practice. Each case is a custom-built theory of how a market works and how it was broken. Below are the areas where Dynamis concentrates.
Monopolization and Exclusionary Conduct
We build and try Section 2 cases that challenge how a dominant firm acquired and weaponized its market power — through acquisitions of would-be rivals, refusals to license, control of an essential facility, and coercive exclusivity imposed on the firms and individuals below it. Our pending suit against Activision Blizzard is exactly this kind of case: it alleges that Activision used its control over the Call of Duty franchise to seize a 100% monopoly over professional Call of Duty leagues and tournaments, then used that power to extract supracompetitive terms from teams and players.
Price-Fixing and Algorithmic Collusion
We prosecute Section 1 and Cartwright Act cases targeting both traditional cartels and the newer forms of coordination that technology enables. Our class action against the pricing-software firm Kalibrate and a group of major fuel retailers alleges that competitors fixed retail gasoline prices by funneling their confidential pricing, cost, and volume data into a shared algorithm that coordinated prices upward — a modern, digital iteration of price-fixing, and one of the first cases brought under California's new algorithmic-pricing statute.
Antitrust Class Actions
We represent classes of consumers, workers, and businesses harmed by anticompetitive conduct, with the experience to handle the issues that decide these cases: relevant-market definition, classwide proof of impact, damages modeling, and certification under Rule 23(b)(3). We litigate these cases in federal court, including under the Class Action Fairness Act.
Follow-On Civil and Treble-Damages Recovery
When the government acts, we move. We build civil cases that leverage government findings to recover treble damages for private victims — and that reach further than the government's action, capturing the additional conduct and additional defendants a public enforcer leaves on the table.
Labor-Market Antitrust
Antitrust protects competition for workers, not just for customers. We pursue wage-suppression, no-poach, and related restraints — including, in the Activision matter, an alleged "Competitive Balance Tax" that functioned as a salary cap and suppressed the wages of professional players.
Government Investigations and Criminal Antitrust Defense
Dynamis was built by former federal prosecutors. When a client receives a Civil Investigative Demand, a grand jury subpoena, or word that the Antitrust Division is looking, we know how the government builds these cases — and how to respond, whether the right move is cooperation, a leniency application, or a fight. We pair that with the firm's deep white-collar and regulatory defense and government investigations practices.
Many antitrust matters overlap with securities, business, and class action disputes; we staff each case with the right combination of those skills.
Our Antitrust Services
Monopolization & Section 2
Challenging dominant firms that acquire and abuse market power.
- Monopolization and attempted monopolization
- Refusals to deal and essential-facility claims
- Anticompetitive acquisitions of rivals
- Leveraging and tying, including via intellectual property
- Exclusive dealing and market foreclosure
Price-Fixing & Cartels
Prosecuting and defending Section 1 and Cartwright Act restraints.
- Horizontal price-fixing and bid-rigging
- Market and customer allocation
- Unlawful information exchange among competitors
- Hub-and-spoke conspiracies
- Government cartel investigations and leniency
Algorithmic & AI Pricing
Litigating the new frontier of coordinated pricing.
- Common pricing algorithms (California AB 325)
- Shared-data and "signaling" theories
- Software-vendor and platform liability
- Supracompetitive margin and overcharge analysis
Antitrust Class Actions
Representing classes of consumers, workers, and businesses.
- Consumer overcharge classes
- Labor-market and wage-suppression classes
- Rule 23(b)(3) certification and classwide damages
- Class Action Fairness Act litigation
- Follow-on treble-damages recovery
Representative Antitrust Matters
Suing Activision Blizzard for monopolizing professional Call of Duty (C.D. Cal.). Dynamis represents esports figures Hector "H3CZ" Rodriguez and Seth "Scump" Abner, along with HECZ, LLC, in a Sherman Act Section 1 and Section 2 action alleging that Activision seized and abused a 100% monopoly over the market for professional Call of Duty leagues and tournaments. The complaint alleges that Activision acquired its leading competitor, refused to license the game to rival organizers, and imposed a closed, twelve-team league with multi-million-dollar entry fees, a 50% revenue share, exclusive sponsorship and broadcast rights, and a "Competitive Balance Tax" that suppressed player wages. The case follows the Department of Justice's own enforcement action against Activision and adds federal and state claims — under the Sherman Act, the California Cartwright Act, and the Illinois Antitrust Act — seeking more than $120 million in damages, to be trebled.
Class action challenging algorithmic gasoline price-fixing in California (E.D. Cal.). Dynamis represents a proposed class of California drivers alleging that the pricing-software company Kalibrate and a group of the state's largest fuel retailers used a shared pricing algorithm to fix retail gasoline prices. The complaint alleges that competing stations surrendered their pricing decisions and their confidential cost and volume data to a common algorithm that coordinated prices upward across local markets — conduct the suit frames as a modern form of price-fixing and an unlawful trust under the Cartwright Act, including under California's newly enacted AB 325 governing common pricing algorithms. The case is among the first to test that statute.
These matters are active and ongoing. Descriptions reflect the allegations and relief sought; they are not predictions or guarantees of outcome.
Frequently Asked Questions About Antitrust Litigation
What is the difference between civil and criminal antitrust?
Criminal antitrust enforcement targets hardcore cartel conduct — price-fixing, bid-rigging, and market allocation — and is brought by the Department of Justice's Antitrust Division, with prison time and large fines on the table. Civil antitrust covers a broader range of conduct, including monopolization and mergers, and can be pursued by the government, by state attorneys general, or by private plaintiffs seeking damages and injunctions. A single course of conduct can trigger both.
What is monopolization under Section 2 of the Sherman Act?
Monopolization is not simply being big or winning. It is the acquisition or maintenance of monopoly power through exclusionary conduct rather than through a superior product. A Section 2 case requires defining the relevant market, proving the defendant has market power within it, and identifying specific conduct — such as acquiring rivals, refusing to deal, or denying access to an essential facility — that harmed competition rather than merely a competitor.
Is algorithmic pricing illegal?
Using software to set your own prices is not illegal. The problem arises when competitors feed their confidential data into a shared pricing algorithm that coordinates prices among them. California's AB 325, effective January 1, 2026, makes explicit that using or distributing a common pricing algorithm to restrain trade violates the Cartwright Act — the same as traditional price-fixing. Federal courts are addressing similar theories under Section 1 of the Sherman Act.
What are treble damages?
Under federal antitrust law and many state statutes, a private plaintiff who proves an antitrust injury can recover three times its actual damages, plus attorneys' fees and costs. Treble damages are what make private antitrust enforcement worth pursuing and what give it real deterrent force.
What is a "follow-on" antitrust case?
When the government — the DOJ, the FTC, or a state attorney general — establishes that a company violated the antitrust laws, private parties harmed by that conduct can bring their own civil suits to recover damages. A well-built follow-on case uses the government's findings as a foundation and often reaches additional conduct and additional defendants that the government did not pursue.
Do you handle antitrust class actions?
Yes. We represent classes of consumers, workers, and businesses, and we have the experience to litigate the issues that decide these cases — market definition, classwide proof of impact, damages models, and certification under Rule 23(b)(3), including in federal court under the Class Action Fairness Act.
Do you represent plaintiffs or defendants?
Both. Dynamis litigates on both sides of the "v." That perspective — knowing how these cases are built and how they are defended — sharpens our strategy whichever side we are on. And because the firm was founded by former federal prosecutors, we are equally at home responding to a government investigation as we are prosecuting an affirmative case.
How long do antitrust cases take, and what do they cost?
Antitrust litigation is document- and expert-intensive; contested cases commonly run two to four years and turn heavily on economic expert work. We discuss case strategy, budget, and — where appropriate — alternative or contingency fee arrangements at the outset, and we structure each engagement around the client's objectives rather than the litigation's momentum.