Briefly
Live preview · United States

Legal and Regulatory intelligence for you

Legal News
United States
Case Law

US Consumers Accuse Milk Cartel of Antitrust Violations

A proposed class of consumers has sued 14 dairy marketing cooperatives in Virginia, alleging antitrust violations. The lawsuit claims the Cooperatives Working Together (CWT) program, now NEXT, subsidizes dairy exports to artificially inflate domestic prices for products like milk, cheese, and butter

6 Oct
United States
Case Law

McDonald's: AI Pricing Antitrust Lawsuit Alleges Price Fixing

On October 3, 2026, a potential class action lawsuit was filed against McDonald's in an Illinois federal court, alleging that the fast-food company and its franchisees unlawfully used artificial intelligence to coordinate and raise menu prices. Lead plaintiff Michael Thomas claims that McDonald's employed an AI-powered pricing engine, developed by Tiger Analytics, to share competitive nonpublic pricing data, set algorithmic prices, and monitor compliance, resulting in an alleged 40% increase in average menu prices over the past five years. This lawsuit carries profound legal significance for businesses, particularly those in franchise models and those increasingly relying on AI for strategic decision-making, especially pricing. It signals a growing legal and regulatory focus on algorithmic pricing and its potential to facilitate anti-competitive practices or consumer fraud. A successful outcome for the plaintiffs could set a precedent for how courts interpret existing antitrust and consumer protection laws in the context of advanced AI, potentially leading to new compliance obligations, increased scrutiny of data-sharing agreements within franchise systems, and a re-evaluation of AI governance frameworks across industries. For consumers, it addresses concerns about transparency and fairness in pricing in an increasingly algorithm-driven marketplace. The legal context of this complaint is firmly rooted in federal and state antitrust and consumer protection statutes. Specifically, the lawsuit alleges violations of the Sherman Act, the foundational federal antitrust law prohibiting agreements in restraint of trade, including price-fixing. It also invokes the Illinois Antitrust Act, which provides state-level prohibitions against anti-competitive conduct, and the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act, targeting unfair or deceptive acts in commerce. The core legal challenge will be to demonstrate that the AI pricing engine facilitated an illegal conspiracy or agreement to fix prices, rather than merely providing independent pricing recommendations, and that this conduct constitutes a deceptive practice under consumer protection laws. Key parties in this litigation include Michael Thomas, the lead plaintiff representing a potential class of consumers, and the defendants, McDonald's and its franchisees. Tiger Analytics, the AI company responsible for developing the alleged pricing engine, is also a central entity in the factual allegations. The case is proceeding in an Illinois federal court, placing it under the jurisdiction of the U.S. District Court for one of Illinois's districts, which will apply federal law and relevant state laws. Practitioners advising businesses, particularly those in the retail, food service, or franchise sectors, and any company utilizing AI for pricing or market strategy, should closely monitor the progression of this lawsuit. It is imperative to review current AI pricing models and data-sharing agreements to assess potential antitrust and consumer protection risks. Attorneys should counsel clients on ensuring that AI algorithms are designed and implemented in a manner that promotes independent competitive behavior rather than facilitating collusion. Developing robust internal compliance programs for AI-driven operations, including clear guidelines on data usage, algorithmic transparency, and pricing autonomy, will be crucial to mitigate legal exposure under evolving regulatory landscapes.

6 Oct
United States
Case Law

9th Circuit: Revives Invisalign Antitrust Suit Over Monopolization

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit revived an antitrust lawsuit against the company behind Invisalign and the handheld intraoral scanner iTero, finding that a California federal court had improperly granted summary judgment in the company's favor. This ruling holds significant legal implications for antitrust practitioners and businesses, particularly those operating in technology-driven markets with dominant players. The Ninth Circuit's decision to overturn summary judgment indicates that the plaintiffs presented a sufficient *prima facie* case, raising genuine issues of material fact regarding the Invisalign firm's alleged attempt to "monopolize the aligner and scanner markets." The core of the claim revolves around the termination of an interoperability agreement with TRIOS, a competing scanner, and whether this action lacked a "procompetitive, nonpretextual business justification." This signals that courts will closely scrutinize actions by dominant firms that could be perceived as exclusionary, especially when they involve cutting off access to essential interoperability. The legal context for this case is federal antitrust law, primarily the Sherman Act, which prohibits monopolization and attempts to monopolize (Section 2). The concept of "refusal to deal" is central, a complex area of antitrust jurisprudence often analyzed under precedents like *Aspen Skiing Co. v. Aspen Highlands Skiing Corp.* and *Verizon Communications Inc. v. Law Offices of Curtis V. Trinko, LLP*. These cases establish that while firms generally have no duty to deal with competitors, a refusal can be anticompetitive under specific, narrow circumstances, particularly if it involves terminating a prior, profitable course of dealing without a legitimate business justification. The Ninth Circuit is a federal appellate court, reviewing decisions from federal district courts within its circuit. The key parties include the plaintiffs who initiated the antitrust suit, the company behind Invisalign and iTero, and TRIOS, the competing scanner. The excerpt does not report the final outcome of the antitrust suit, only that it has been revived for further proceedings. For attorneys advising companies with substantial market power, especially in sectors reliant on interoperability or proprietary technology, this decision underscores the critical need for robust antitrust compliance. Any decision to terminate interoperability agreements or alter relationships with competitors must be supported by clear, documented, and genuinely procompetitive business justifications. Businesses should conduct thorough antitrust risk assessments before implementing such changes, as courts, particularly the Ninth Circuit, appear willing to allow such cases to proceed to trial if a plausible anticompetitive motive is alleged. For plaintiffs, this ruling provides a valuable roadmap, emphasizing the importance of establishing a strong *prima facie* case that challenges the defendant's justifications and demonstrates potential harm to competition.

6 Oct
United States
Case Law

SCOTUS Denies Paramount Warner Merger Block, Clears Deal Path

The Supreme Court denied an emergency application from five consumers seeking to block the $110 billion Paramount Skydance and Warner Bros. Discovery merger. Justice Elena Kagan issued the denial just hours after the application was filed, clearing the way for the merger to close on Tuesday.

5 Oct
United States
Case Law

CNN, MS NOW, and Politico Sue Over White House Press Ban; Hearing Set Before the Same Judge Who Ruled for CNN in 2018

CNN, MS NOW, and Politico have sued the Trump administration over a White House press ban, with a federal judge — the same one who ordered Jim Acosta's credentials restored in 2018, set to hear their emergency request Wednesday, as major broadcast networks suspend pool coverage of the president in solidarity.

22 Sept